Reforming the Justice System

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

People don't change

---

yes they do. it is possible. And unless you are going to lock everybody up for life, you have to accept that people will be released at some point. Rehabilitation in prison will help to reduce the liklihood of that criminal reoffending. Is it perfect? No, of course not, but it can help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

it is not the responsibility of the justice system to attempt to do so

---

It is the responsibility of the justice system to protect society from those who wish to harm others in that society, hopefully before they commit a crime, but at least after they commit a crime. Are you really saying that a justice system shouldn't try to rehabilitate anybody in their prisons on the basis that 'people don't change'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

I have no idea whether you can empathise or not but if you imagine a scenario where your mother or sister was raped, do you think 10 or 15 years down the line when they're back on the street and they've "behaved" in jail you or they would be able to imagine the rapist as anything but?

---

I have no doubt that the victim of their family will never be able to think of the offender as anything other than a rapist, and I have no doubt that the release of the offender would be another terrible, terrible trauma for them.

However, I don't think that alone is enough to keep a person in prison if qualified psychologists (or similar people) have come to a conclusion that the criminal is no longer a danger to society.

Note - with crimes like rape, and particularly paedophilia, where the issue of whether or not it is a 'sickness' that the criminal themself cannot control, I am in favour of keeping them in prison possible indefinitely.

My first concern is to protect society, but I believe that rehabilitation is a way to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

It is the responsibility of the justice system to protect society from those who wish to harm others in that society, hopefully before they commit a crime

---

The Garda Siochana - Protectors of the Peace - are not part of the justice system. The Justice system brings justice to bear upon those that have already committed a crime. It is up to the Gardai to protect society - theoretically, people are not locked up to stop them from offending again, but as punishment for doing so. Unfortunately (fortunately?) we don't live in a society where the Gardai can be everywhere at once so the justice system is seen as serving a role the Gardai have responsibility for.

Quote:

---

but at least after they commit a crime. Are you really saying that a justice system shouldn't try to rehabilitate anybody in their prisons on the basis that 'people don't change'?

---

I should rephrase that. The kind of people he's talking about, when they've gone that far, no, they don't change. Either they were born or raised in some way that resulted in them having little or no conscience or they have had serious psychological damage to go from a normal personality to a murderous one - Cymro even suggesting that serial killers might just be under pressure!

Quote:

---

I have no doubt that the victim of their family will never be able to think of the offender as anything other than a rapist, and I have no doubt that the release of the offender would be another terrible, terrible trauma for them.

Note - with crimes like rape, and particularly paedophilia, where the issue of whether or not it is a 'sickness' that the criminal themself cannot control, I am in favour of keeping them in prison possible indefinitely.

---

(yes, i've moved relevant sentences next to each other, don't take it as attempting to take them out of context) Then as you say, if it only causes harm to the victims, again, and is probably a personality disorder which cannot be cured, why bother?

Quote:

---

However, I don't think that alone is enough to keep a person in prison if qualified psychologists (or similar people) have come to a conclusion that the criminal is no longer a danger to society.
My first concern is to protect society, but I believe that rehabilitation is a way to do that.

---

Sure, if someone is an addict or a pimp or a tax evader or a violent drunk - if a panel judges that they seem to have reformed, give them a go. These are the situational crimes that Cymro has somehow mixed rape and cold blooded serial killing in with.

Knock the language on the head please lads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

Bullsh*t. People kill because they are the type of personality that can kill, put in a situation where it suits them. Killing to survive or in defense is one thing but the type of person that knifes their wife because he's having an affair, molests an alter boy or rapes and kills a little girl - they're driven by some sort of existentialism?

---

I wasn't referring to killing to survive or in self defence. Many of the murderers, rapists, molesters and otherwise that you mention, perhaps even a majority, have no job, no social life, very few friends, et cetera, and spend their days drinking or doing drugs, or basically wandering around being a nuisance because they have nothing else to do. They focus on the one thing they have, that is the vulnerable person they think they can exploit.

Give them something constructive to do, and get them off their addictive influences, and a significant few could become useful members of society.

I would say a great deal of normal law abiding citizens could be driven to kill under extreme circumstances such as those, so it is not as simple as 'this guy has bad DNA/had a bad upbringing so we should lock him up or kill him'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I'm not against the death penalty because I'm not convinced of the guilt of a defendant, or because I'm not convinced the crime is serious enough.

---

For me, and from reading posts since, the seriousness of the crime is the crucial factor. Nobody is saying that those that can be rehabilitated should suffer the death penalty, nobody is saying that rehabilitation doesn't work, but in crimes of such seriousness as have been posted and numerous others, then it should be available. With crimes that me and jebus have posted, you cannot claim that everyone might react like that given the right circumstances.

What's the difference between being keeping the likes of Ramzi Yousef (WTC bomb 93, Phillipine Airlines bomb, First developer of liquid explosives) in entire solitary confinement and the death penalty? Someone with his lethal mix of being clever and extremely dangerous cannot be released - and there are plenty of others [unless you dare suggest that everyone in prison is dumb] - so electric chair or make sure they rot? What's the difference?

When you're dealing with the highest level of crime, then the death penalty is as justifiable as anything else and moreso than attempts at rehabilitation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfx-

Nobody is saying that those that can be rehabilitated should suffer the death penalty, nobody is saying that rehabilitation doesn't work, but in crimes of such seriousness as have been posted and numerous others, then it should be available.

---

How do you know if somebody can be rehabilitated or not until rehabilitation has been at least attempted. Your attitude seems to be along the lines of "Look at the terrible crime this guy did - somebody who did something like that could never be rehabilitated."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfx-

What's the difference between being keeping the likes of Ramzi Yousef (WTC bomb 93, Phillipine Airlines bomb, First developer of liquid explosives) in entire solitary confinement and the death penalty? Someone with his lethal mix of being clever and extremely dangerous cannot be released - and there are plenty of others [unless you dare suggest that everyone in prison is dumb] - so electric chair or make sure they rot? What's the difference?

---

The difference is that if the state execute a person like him, they are guilty of pre-meditated killing. Killing of a total *******, undoubtedly, but they are still killing him. I've already said that in my opinion, nobody, including a state/justice system, should have the right to take the life of another, no matter what crime they have committed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfx-

When you're dealing with the highest level of crime, then the death penalty is as justifiable as anything else and moreso than attempts at rehabilitation.

---

I feel the death penalty is never justifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

The difference is that if the state execute a person like him, they are guilty of pre-meditated killing. Killing of a total *******, undoubtedly, but they are still killing him. I've already said that in my opinion, nobody, including a state/justice system, should have the right to take the life of another, no matter what crime they have committed

---

My point is that the state is ensuring the death of the ******* either way - only that one is supervised for maybe 40 years. Is that not pre-meditated enough? Which is more humane for the criminal? Which one are they likely to become even more mentally instable?

Little negative difference in my opinion.

Quote:

---

]The difference is that if the state execute a person like him, they are guilty of pre-meditated killing. Killing of a total *******, undoubtedly, but they are still killing him. I've already said that in my opinion, nobody, including a state/justice system, should have the right to take the life of another, no matter what crime they have committed

---

I agree with the above.The only argument that I can argue for the death penalty is that it is very expensive to keep someone in prison for potentially [hopefully] a very long time.In america the appeals system is also very expensive.On balance keep them in jail possibly for life depending on circumstances but try to keep the costs down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

The difference is that if the state execute a person like him, they are guilty of pre-meditated killing. Killing of a total *******, undoubtedly, but they are still killing him. I've already said that in my opinion, nobody, including a state/justice system, should have the right to take the life of another, no matter what crime they have committed

---

why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfx-

My point is that the state is ensuring the death of the ******* either way - only that one is supervised for maybe 40 years. Is that not pre-meditated enough? Which is more humane for the criminal? Which one are they likely to become even more mentally instable?

Little negative difference in my opinion.

---

Locking someone up until they die is for practical purposes the same thing as killing them immediately - taking away their life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfx-

My point is that the state is ensuring the death of the ******* either way - only that one is supervised for maybe 40 years. Is that not pre-meditated enough? Which is more humane for the criminal? Which one are they likely to become even more mentally instable?

---

The criminal, like everybody else, is going to die anyway.
Locking them up and waiting for them to die is not pre-meditated murder. It is a pre-meditated decision to punish them, and to protect society (if necessary)

And again, I do feel that letting somebody live is more humane than killing them, even if their quality of life is substantially reduced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

why?

---

That is just what I believe.


I think that what it all boils down to is whether you feel that the state should have a right to execute criminals if it chooses to do so (following sentencing guidelines etc).

I don't, but it is not hard to understand the views of those who do.