Just a hypothetical question for discussion. I haven’t thought this through, and it may have been debated previously in the forum, but we have new members everyday and I’m happy to hear new perspectives on things.

Let’s say that someone has found a way to remove tattoos without any scars left behind.

The government decides that instead of putting people in prison, the new method of punishment is a tattoo on the forehead of an offender, stating his or her crime and then releasing them back into his or her community.

It’s a simple concept – a rapist would have the word ‘rapist’ tattooed on his or her forehead, same applies with child molester, wife/husband basher, thief, bank robber, drug dealer, murderer, serial killer, sex offender, etc. etc. etc.

The tattoo remains on the forehead for the term of the sentence that would have been imposed on the criminal had they been incarcerated.

At the end of the sentence, with the new technology the tattoo removal would leave no scars, so the offender/s, if they desire, can start a new life somewhere else at the end of his/her punishment term.

Do you think that this punishment would make any difference to crime rates?

I’m not feeling particularly vengeful at the moment and don’t have any axes to grind with anyone, it’s just a thought that surfaced tonight, and now I’m curious as to what you all think?

Do you think this is a cruel punishment? Is it fair? Is it ethical or moral?

As I said, I haven’t thought it through, but I know we have some deep thinkers here and I’m hoping to hear some opinions.

Cheers
Teri

Scarlet Letter

I don't like the idea. Rapists and murderers are dangerous....if allowed to run free, they will hurt sombody. I don't see how identifying them would stop them from attacking sombody again.

Nah, keep 'em in jail.

I don't think it's un-ethical per se. The definition of 'cruel and unusual' fluctuates.

I would think that you would be setting up a vigilante justice system. Unofficial acknowledgement of one to be more precise. What then would hold a murderer in check for doing a repeat? By such actions you take away any means of punishing the offender other than by peer pressure. That's not much help in stopping the behaviour in some of the characters.

Maybe this would be more effective in selected cases than in others. Like child molesters and minor drug users where the opinion of the public is important to the individual.

It is my firm belief that some of the people within the jails would not detered by such a system. That the only hope for safety, for the population at large, is isolation from that population. I.e. jail.

Uhhh....all they would have to do it wear a hat... well that or a skimask :D

I bought one of the first playstation 2 consoles to be released in this country.
Within two days I was being asked if I wanted it 'chipped'
If the technology existed to remove the tattoos in the manner you state I guarantee it would be on the street and buyable within a month, tops.

Good concept, but easily corruptable I fear

That's why amputation of a hand is so much more preferrable.

Take care ;)

I think Wet1 pretty much nailed what I hadn't thought of - the fact that you would be afraid of what other people think, would be a deterrent for only a handful.

When faced with any dilema I ususally try to visualise myself in that situation and go by how I would feel. Having anything stamped on my forehead would humiliate me enough to deter any criminal behaviour.

It really was a dumb idea. Hey, but what about if they found the genes that cause people to harm others and have the technology to remove it? I've probably asked this before because it feels familiar but I'd still like to hear new opinions.

And Chagur, amputation of the hand sounds to me like only one method you have in mind, any others?:D


Cheers
Teri

what is your perpose of the punishment?

Protection?
as people have said it wouldn't really work

Vengance?
maybe (personally i don't like using punishment because whats happend has happend and we have to get on with it, you can cause someone to get worse if punishment is your aim)

Rehabilitation?
Not a chance (this is the most important for me and spending 2 years say being ridiculed for smoking or something will make someone resent sociaty)

Deterant?
not really (most crimes are acts of desperation or passion and no deterant will stop that)

Guess the 'tattooing' idea gave me a chuckle since when I proposed
it in a Criminal Justice seminar a bunch of years ago because I felt it was
a viable solution to the anonymity of the urban experience (in a small
town everyone pretty well knows who the 'bad guys' are) so long as
removal of the tattoo carried the death penalty (serious consequence
for those who endangered the public at large) it created a furor.

The prof. had to do a 'time out' thanks to a student who later became
the county's Sherriff wanting to punch me out.

Admittedly, wearing a denim jacket with a peace sign on the back and
sandles to a C.J. seminar in the early '70's may not have been the
wisest thing to do, but it was fun. Yeah, even when it comes to 'fun',
I'm a bit weird.

Take care ;)

You really do have my favorite type of sense of humour.:D


Have a good day
Teri

:)

You mean there are other types of humor?

Guess I'm not going to live long enough to understand this species.

Take care ;)

Yeah Chag, you are pretty damn funny. Everytime I think of that 'sniffing your watch' thing - I crack up!!!
Oh, and groovy new avatar! :D

My 'Earth Day' avatar. Glad you like it.

Back to the old one tomorrow so I can find my posts when I'm
searching a thread.

Take care ;)

Try and reform the person first, then if that doesn't work you can always kill 'em. ;)

Doesn't work, so why waste the time and money?

Take care, and welcome to Sciforums ;)

thank you for the welcome.

Perhaps you didn't catch my jest. If someone does something stupid they should be punished to the upmost severity according to society's laws. Of course how these laws are defined is a tricky question.

This may seem like a stupid question but why is "punishment" important?

Surelly curing the problem should be the aim?

i mean if someone steals and crashes your car spending 20 years in jail wont bring the car back

This WILL get me into trouble but its the same with murder. No punishment will ever bring the person back, so why lose TWO people?

Say we could wipe a persons memory and make sure they will never do it again. What would be better prevention and rehab or punishment?

Asguard: Basically, a murderer surrenders their right to live. Basic reciprocity, tit for tat, that sort of thing.

The only reason we shouldn't kill is because of the possibility of error.

Anyways, punishment is important because it is a basic human need.

And because it is just, but I can't prove that so I will let it rest.

I dissagree

I got over tid for tat when i was in primary school

Its part of whats wrong in the world

You hurt me so i hurt you

what do you think they are doing in Israil\palistine and Northan Irland or the marfia

Its called a circle of vilolance and its only when countrys "grow up" that they get over it

Vengance solves NOTHING. Its has not brought ONE person back

come one we are surpose to be BETTER than criminals but countrys like the US paticapate in the same mindset as the mafia (talking about the Death pennalty although you could aplie the same logic to there war on terra)

B\W if your thing was excepted there would be no crime because you could always find something the other person did to you first

Revenges is murder under our laws, how about yours?

You can not legistale morality, nor can you make everyone obey the law. The trick is to make the end result of breaking that law enough to make one stop and reconsider. (In crimes of passion this will not work either) You must carry through with the punishment so that the next one might think about not doing it. Now if you have some suggestion that is a deterant, I will listen, but I believe that most has been tried at one time or another with no success at all. If the punishment makes 1 out of say 4 reconsider, due to the concequences of that act, then you have done something. Doing nothing, or making the "rehabilation effort" less than the punishment opens the flood gates to any who would consider it. After all, when was the last time that a kid stopped doing something because he would be told to stand in the corner? How many have had to use this sort of punishment more than once even though the child understand what the results would be? Now, change the punishment to spanking. A lot of the kids will think about what happens afterwards. Not all but some will not what to get spanked more than others. In this case the punishment is a deterent but it is not 100% effective. Neither are the laws 100% effective. So what do you do? Let 'em walk free? Will you feel safe if this is what happens to murders or thieves? How will you make an effective treatment that works?

I agree that "Protection" of scociaty is important, and if it works as a deterant then maybe thats good to (there is a point though, torcher might work but is just wrong)

What im arguing is the value of punishment or VENGANCE (thats probably a better word as punishment is used to cover all of them)

That is one of the arguments against the Death penalty, once there in jail we are protected from them

My question was desined to see wether people think rehab (say it works 100% in this case) or vengance was more important

Xev thinks vengance is because its
a basic human need.

this dosen't jell because you can't use it as a deffence in court, so it CAN'T be a human need

Revenge is wrong, simple as that

Bugger the law. I've never heard of a legal system that makes sense. I don't believe in law. I do believe in justice.

What do you mean by justice?

what IS justice?

What do I mean by justice?

I mean if someone punches you, punch them back harder so they don't do it again.

If someone steals your wallet, take everything they own.

If someone physically attacks you, you have the right to do anything you want to completely neutralise that threat. You are under no obligation to stop at anything less than complete neutralisation of any threat to your safety.

In short: Whatever they do to you, do it back three times worse. Eventually they will learn not to screw people over.

thats not justice

Not my definition anyway

Self defence is not justice but is compleatly JUSTIFIDE

As to the rest i don't agree

deterants don't work (if something WILL work as a deterant fair enough, as long as its ethical), and revenge is wrong

I stand by that

Revenge in ANY form is wrong, in a legle sence its wrong, in an ethical sence its wrong, in a economic sence its wrong, in most RELIGIONS its wrong, in a social sence its wrong and in a security sence its wrong, even is a scientific sence its wrong

ETHICAL:

Ethics say killing is wrong in all sences, so using death penelty is wrong because its killing (in cold blood)

ECONOMIC:
the more people in a sociaty (working profitably, not in jails) the better sociaty is as a whole, economicaly

RELIGIOSES:
This one is debateable but christanity says that anyone can change, there is no point of no return, other religions maybe different

SOCIAL:
sociaty runs more smothly when people are happy and killing its own citisens or locking them up for long periods of time for mestakes you are breeding desent

SECURITY:
Long jail terms have a tendancy to make people re-offend

SCIENCE:
science says that we should treat criminal behavior as a mental illness and try to cure the criminals

As you can see there are quite a few reasons for forgiveness (or rehab depending on how you look at it)

It is ingrained into our sociaty that people CAN change but we keep saying we need vengance. This ignores the other three componants of "justice" (rehabilitation, deterance, and protection)

If people behave in a civilised manner, I don't harm them. Life is wonderful. That's all I ask of people: that they behave in a civilised manner. But they don't.

Since we have free will, the committing of an act of harm against any other person is a deliberate choice. It is not sickness. It is not "society's" fault. It is a choice. If someone makes that choice and it involves me, they will most likely be in big trouble.

My view is that the human "community" has become too large for justice to operate effectively, as opposed to law.

In a small community, if someone offended against you, then "justice" might be, for example, that they had to give you something of theirs in return, to an equal value of what was taken away. Difficult to measure, but easier by comparison to today's society. The entire community would be witness to such a transaction, and the offender perhaps (hopefully) sufficiently embarrassed so that it would not happen again. In small communities, everyone would also have a better (if not perfect) idea of who the offender really was as a person, and what may have caused antisocial behaviour in the first place.

Modern society is impersonal, and offenders have to be treated in a manner where the "community" as whole can see that the law is adhered to.. and in such a case justice may not be fully served, and such it often appears to the victim and those who take a more personal interest. The law is applied by those who have no direct involvement or real interest in the case, as opposed to a small "tribe" of closely involved persons.

Perhaps this is why Adam sees that justice is not served by law, a position which I fully agree with. However, I also can not see that retribution is the answer. Intellectually, I know that it's not, but in my heart I fully support his views. It's difficult for us to accept that "justice will be done" when we know that in many cases this just doesnt happen. If someone took my family, for example, I dont know if i could sit and do nothing waiting for "justice" to be served... because in most cases the punishment does not fit the crime, and in a large community the feeling of isolation after punishment is not so pronounced, rendering the punishment largely ineffective.

It's not just about retribution/revenge. The fact is people are stupid, greedy bastards. If enough of them are hurt or made to face justice in some manner, they will eventually learn to behave. Revenge is about the past. Justice is also about the future.

Asguard,

I see your thoughts of wanting to keep from killing as commendable. I do not, however agree with them and especially some of the other thoughts you have laid down.


Ethics say killing is wrong in all sences, so using death penelty is wrong because its killing (in cold blood)

Culture and majority determine ethics. (Just like sanity) Crimes that carry the death penalty are for the most serious of offences. How does the family that lost a loved one console themselves to living with the idea that the perpetrator that wrecked their lives is living and will be in some cases back on the block in a matter of time? Their family member is gone never to be able to return to them. Why should that one, who caused their misery and grief, be able to profit by it later on in life? It sounds as if you say that the killer is more just because he will see many more days, while his victim has no voice to speak of the agony of his own death. Was the victim any less right because he is dead?


the more people in a sociaty (working profitably, not in jails) the better sociaty is as a whole, economicaly

If giving people jobs would eliminate crime then I would be all for it. People in jail are there because they could not live by society rules. Plain and simple. So how do you teach them it is wrong? Hollering at them is not going to do it. If you propose to have everyone working and no one in jail then you must have a near perfect deterrent. (One that works!) You will have to come up with what works to allow such people back into society; else you may be the next victim. Economics is not all the story. If it was, when some one was found guilty of any crime that meant imprisonment they would be shot to keep from having to spend money on them to feed, cloth, and house them.


This one is debatable but Christianity says that anyone can change, there is no point of no return, other religions maybe different

So how many do you allow the killer to kill before you decide that maybe he will never be able to interact with society. After the first death, if you do not stop the behavior, it will at some time resurface again. How would you feel if it were your son that was killed as the second victim after he had already been caught.



sociaty runs more smothly when people are happy and killing its own citisens or locking them up for long periods of time for mestakes you are breeding desent

Here we run into which is more deserving, the killer free to terrorize those around him or society, who is the victim? If you let the killer remain at large it will promote hysteria among those who are innocent and there are far more of them then there are of killers. Look at all the stuff that went on when Son of Sam was on the hunt. Or Jack The Ripper. Both are famous serial killers.


Long jail terms have a tendancy to make people re-offend I will not argue this point. What would you suggest to take its place?


science says that we should treat criminal behavior as a mental illness and try to cure the criminals

And how do you do that? We have tried jails, rehabs, institutions, but no single treatment works. Really seems to be effective in all round use it needs to be. A lot of this also depends on the individual. Rehabs returning to jail are just as high as ever because the rehab didn't take.

come one we are surpose to be BETTER than criminals but countrys like the US paticapate in the same mindset as the mafia (talking about the Death pennalty although you could aplie the same logic to there war on terra)

What? The Mafia? I don't see a connection.

You hurt me, I take away your ability to hurt me ever again. Quid pro quo.


this dosen't jell because you can't use it as a deffence in court, so it CAN'T be a human need

Revenge is wrong, simple as that

Whether or not it is a basic need is not dependant on whether it works as a defense in court.


ETHICAL:

Ethics say killing is wrong in all sences, so using death penelty is wrong because its killing (in cold blood)

Some ethical systems do, mine dosen't. Try again.


ECONOMIC:
the more people in a sociaty (working profitably, not in jails) the better sociaty is as a whole, economicaly

Are you going to tell a rape victim: "Sorry, but your rapist could pour a bit of money into society, so we're going to let him off"?

Bull. I won't let my sense of greed interefere with justice.


RELIGIOSES:
This one is debateable but christanity says that anyone can change, there is no point of no return, other religions maybe different

There is no God, thus Christianity is false, thus your arguement fails.

In any case, even if there were a God, He has no right to tell us what to do.


SOCIAL:
sociaty runs more smothly when people are happy and killing its own citisens or locking them up for long periods of time for mestakes you are breeding desent

MISTAKES? What? Since when were rape and murder itty bitty mistakes?!


SECURITY:
Long jail terms have a tendancy to make people re-offend

So keep them there for good! Or until they are too old to do anything!


SCIENCE:
science says that we should treat criminal behavior as a mental illness and try to cure the criminals

No it dosen't.


As you can see there are quite a few reasons for forgiveness (or rehab depending on how you look at it)

None valid.

In a small community, if someone offended against you, then "justice" might be, for example, that they had to give you something of theirs in return, to an equal value of what was taken away


And how exactly can you give back the security and happiness you have taken from someone when you rape them. OR how can you give back a life if you take it?

*stRgrL*
You can't.

So which side are you weighing in for? :)

Oh sorry! I thought everyone knew how I felt.

Kill em all!!!!

I fully support the death penalty, the only thing wrong with it is that we dont use it enough. Here where I work, we have a jail outreach program and education and rehabilitation DONT WORK! Their animals who dont give a shit about the lives of the people they terrorize. It could of been because of their extremely traumatized life:confused: But I for one, have lived that life and if I made it out okay, so can other people. They dont care about themselves or anyone else - so why do we feel the need to "figure them out"? I really wish they could be helped but the facts remain - they cant! So lock em forever or kill em. The latter makes more sense because it saves money and time and I believe the murderers and rapists deserve death. Just my opinion anyways.....


Groove on

I will surport the death penelty the SECOND somone points out to me the victome it has brought back

Its NOT necisary and it DOSN'T deter ANYONE

It brought back Herbert West, of Arkham, MA.

*Points at Herbert*

Originally posted by Asguard
I will surport the death penelty the SECOND somone points out to me the victome it has brought back

Its NOT necisary and it DOSN'T deter ANYONE

Maybe it doesn't bring the victims back, but it sure as hell makes sure that particular offender doesnt have any MORE victims.

But if a person COULD be reformed with 100% chance of sucess i STILL don't think most of you people would take that as enough

that was my origional point

and it seems you people chose VENGANCE, so concratulations, you would all make perfect mobsters

Xev:

thats how the mafia work. its all tid for tat there to so you have the same idealogical base as them

*Places a horse head on Asguard's pillow*


But if a person COULD be reformed with 100% chance of sucess i STILL don't think most of you people would take that as enough

I would.



thats how the mafia work. its all tid for tat there to so you have the same idealogical base as them

Ad hominem. Attack my arguments, not me.

ok form you responce to the post WAY long ago i thought you were revenge first

Sorry

And whats the horse's head about?:eek:

I still haven't had any response to the second idea of eliminating the gene that produces aggression.

Biology & technology married together to make the perfect means of elimating crime. I'm not sure how far science has come to being able to isolate certain genes in the human brain but surely they're getting close.

Can anyone see a problem with with doing that? People would still be able to display temper tantrums in all sorts of ways but physically hurting someone would not be the end result.

Of course this doesn't solve the crimes against property i.e. theft, vandalism, etc, but I would be willing to live with that if it was possible to stop people from hurting each other.

This is just my opinion and I'd love to hear from someone who's been through the prison system for an offence and has come out the other side a new person. Their opinion would interest me greatly on this topic. Join the forum under an alias and let us know what you're thinking.

And Asguard,
Get a copy of The Godfather from your local video store and watch it. It will answer the quesions about the horse's head.:D

Cheers,
Teri

First off, I would gladly support a 100% effective method of eliminating crime. Throughout the history of man, no one has found that. What to do with criminals and how to stop such behavior has given many a lawmaker, king, justice system, and country headaches in trying to deal with it. To date we are still wracking with the problem and are no closer than when we started.

IMHO, gene therapy will not offer a 100% solution either. Changing genes will not eliminate social environment, one of the attributing causes to criminal behavior, if we are to believe psychologists. Another aspect of gene therapy that will have to be dealt with is that some desirable traits in human behavior may well go with the eradication of the undesirable traits. Things like how hard you fight to live, judgement, concentration, and individualism. At what point do you say, "This is not a human being but a robot?" Or a slave? Or a drone to society needs and wishes? Are you willing to pay this price to have security from crime? If you are, is everyone else?

I still haven't had any response to the second idea of eliminating the gene that produces aggression.

Well: you see Teri2,...how can I explain,...let's start by explaining a bit about the genes,...

The genes do NOT hold the answers to our behaviour completely,...the genes change! yes they do,...!!!
as a matter of fact: the genes change according to our behaviour,...
so acctually it's 'WE' ourselfves who cultivate our genes,...and our offspring (if only more people would know about this and care)
of course: there's a big part of cultural and behavioral information stored in them but let's say for example: that my grandfather had the neccesety to kill because he was in the WWII,
now, we all know that genes are passed on not from generation to generation but that they skipp a generation first before passing on the elements on info,..

So, then practically I would have succesfully gained control over the proces and of course by help of my grandfather who was opposed to killing anyone,...

But suppose he enjoyed it? And that he killed whenever he could? (I can imagine that living at any front in a war drives people mad,....no?)

Then as a result I would have more eager to kill: because it's in my subconcious,....

It's also a proven fact that children who grow up in a family with a lot of violence on their hands are more likely to extrapolate that behaviour towards others: because this behaviour was succesfull in having power over 'them' in the first place,....(having had a parent who beat you up every day for the stupidest thing)

Can you see where I'm headded? So it IS a cultural herritage for a part,...but cutting a gene away or killing a person in return is like : taking a painkiller : relieves the pain BUT DOESN'T CURE the cause,...in fact: if you take away that specific gene: then you'll make the person (and his/her offspring) incapable of ever retrieveing or gaining control over their unconcious thoughts in a concious manner,...

So you see it's all about consiousness,....

Thx
:bugeye: