Prison sentences for first offenses are pointless

N

Norsefire

Salam Shalom Salom
Registered Senior Member
In my opinion (excluding for murder or rape)

The person should first be given a warning, and then a second chance; if he abuses the second chance (assuming it is a victimless crime, such as fraud or counterfeiting), he could be given rehabilitation/education/community service, registered and tagged with a tracking device, and given a third chance. Then, only after the third chance in this situation should we resort to punishment, but then prisons become pointless, so our only real options are labour camps or death penalty.

As for violent crimes, for something like assault, we could give a warning, but also provide rehabilitation; for robbery, same thing and provide education/rehabilitation. Perhaps even a third chance if the person doesn't seriously harm the victim. However afterwards, there should be no question of using the death penalty

As for murder of passion, I think a lengthy prison sentence (say, 15 yrs) would do, during which time the prisoner is put to work and offered counseling

Rape and cold blood murder could be death penalty first offense crimes




Now, the reason I am not a fan of first offense prison sentences or lengthy prison sentences is because they do not allow the person in question to actually change their ways. If you commit a serious robbery, you could get a lengthy prison sentence; however if you regretted it and vowed not to do it again, it's too late and you get no second chance.

They should first be given opportunities to change, and only if they don't afterward, can we talk about punishment, but mostly, elimination (as they are obviously threats); we could put them to use as resources for the state, or simply execute them.


Another benefit of this system is that I am confident wrongful executions would be cut down; why? It would not be a coincidence that the same person is caught multiple times committing a crime.
 
How come murder in the 2nd is given a lesser degree? I can see using such a system for manslaughter but whether planned or not in murder in the 2nd degree the intention is still to kill the victim. Even if one is emotionally charged they know that if you shoot or stab someone you could and probably would kill somebody.
 
Raven said:
How come murder in the 2nd is given a lesser degree? I can see using such a system for manslaughter but whether planned or not in murder in the 2nd degree the intention is still to kill the victim. Even if one is emotionally charged they know that if you shoot or stab someone you could and probably would kill somebody.
Click to expand...

The reason is because, in the end, we are only Human and emotion can be very powerful at times, and it might be understandable, at least, that someone may become so emotionally charged that they become violent and simply can't control themselves.

I'm not saying it's justified, but it is understandable, and thus we should be more lenient. However, murder in cold blood is calculated and the killer is in full awareness and control over what he is planning and what he does.
 
What happened to your policy of the Death Penalty for all 'heinous' crimes? Now you're suggesting that we should let armed robbers off with a warning!

Plus,
Norsefire said:
Rape and cold blood murder could be death penalty first offense crimes
Click to expand...

:jawdrop:
 
Norsefire said:
In my opinion (excluding for murder or rape)

The person should first be given a warning, and then a second chance; if he abuses the second chance (assuming it is a victimless crime, such as fraud or counterfeiting), he could be given rehabilitation/education/community service, registered and tagged with a tracking device, and given a third chance.
Click to expand...
So I get to commit fraud/counterfeit/whatever as much as I want until I get caught the first time? SCORE! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go buy some books about how money is printed...
 
Cellar_Door said:
What happened to your policy of the Death Penalty for all 'heinous' crimes? Now you're suggesting that we should let armed robbers off with a warning!

Plus,


:jawdrop:
Click to expand...



i dont normally agree with him, but on this i do, i think he's completly right, why should we pay taxes to ahve murderers living in prison, however we do ahve to find a more humain way of killing them
 
LA, what about the fact that they are a resorce that can be exploited to PREVENT future crimes?

How much tax payers money is a life worth?
 
Asguard said:
LA, what about the fact that they are a resorce that can be exploited to PREVENT future crimes?

How much tax payers money is a life worth?
Click to expand...

i didnt think of that part, but i still dont think they should lay about in prison and not let the family of the person/people they killed not ahve closure
 
I'm a fan of first offense prison sentences for serious offences, including what you term 'victimless' crimes. Imprisonment is a deterrent. If people think they can 'get away with it' once, they might be more tempted to try. The idea of being locked up might sway them back onto a lawful path however.
 
since when has possetion or prostitution been a serious offence?
those are the victomless crimes
 
Asguard said:
since when has possetion or prostitution been a serious offence?
those are the victomless crimes
Click to expand...

Who says they are serious? Nobody but you has mentioned them.

Are they victimless? Simply because those involved do it to themselves? Aren't they still a victim, due to societal pressure, or unfortunate circumstances? A perpetrator does not have to be a person, it can be a company, government, or a society.
 
my opinion?
your right they are not victomless (well protestitution could be a choice) but they should never be crimes. They should be health issues
 
Asguard said:
my opinion?
your right they are not victomless (well protestitution could be a choice) but they should never be crimes. They should be health issues
Click to expand...

prositution should not be a crime your right, some owmen like to do it,
 
Asguard said:
my opinion?
your right they are not victomless (well protestitution could be a choice) but they should never be crimes. They should be health issues
Click to expand...

Here I agree. The only way to make it safe is to legalise it. The current system is the worst of both worlds.
 
prositution should not be a crime your right, some owmen like to do it,
Click to expand...

Very few.
Prostitution is often used to fund drug habits or is part of a broader sex trafficking problem. Plus, many of these women are forced to do what they do by violent men and poverty.
If prostitution was made legal we would inadvertantly be condoning all of this; this would give brothel owners loopholes through which they could evade the law.
 
Cellar_Door how would they be circumventingt the law?
If you legalises it (not decriminalise, LEGALISE) then you regulate it like any other industry. You have health and safty inspectors and regulations, work place agreements ect.
 
prison should be a last resort for keeping those that are a proven danger to others out of normal society, it should not be a method of punishment.
 
i agree, actually prison shouldnt exist. Rather they should be secure psych wards where people are treated rather than locked up for a specific time period
 
Cellar_Door said:
Very few.
Prostitution is often used to fund drug habits or is part of a broader sex trafficking problem. Plus, many of these women are forced to do what they do by violent men and poverty.
If prostitution was made legal we would inadvertantly be condoning all of this; this would give brothel owners loopholes through which they could evade the law.
Click to expand...

Proof for the "very few" comment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top