EUHR Court rules life sentences against human rights.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Lettres de cachet rules illegal.

 

Does anyone besides me thing the European Union is soft on crime?

[timmie 988]

They're not saying life sentences are against human rights. They say that

 

 

...the problem arises if the prisoner doesn't get a chance to prove at some point that they are reformed.

 

Life imprisonment is overrated anyway. It is more out of revenge than out of the question what's good for society. Norway has no life imprisonment and has 'luxurious' prisons, which would make them 'soft on crime', yet their policies seem to be more effective than in other countries.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

They're not saying life sentences are against human rights. They say that

 

 

...the problem arises if the prisoner doesn't get a chance to prove at some point that they are reformed.

 

Life imprisonment is overrated anyway. It is more out of revenge than out of the question what's good for society. (Norway has no life imprisonment and has 'luxurious' prisons, which would make them 'soft on crime', yet their policies seem to be more effective than in other countries.

That's because of the emphasis on rehabilitation. Compare that to the US, which has overcrowded and violent prisons. By the time that the prisoners have served their time, they are kicked out into the world with no mentality on what to do with themselves and hence often find themselves back in jail. Compare that to the programs in countries like Norway, which help inmates become productive members of society when they walk out the gates.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yes, and who has a better prison system? The one that actually prevents crime and turns ex criminals into productive members of society, or the one that does non of that but satisfies the gut justice of the plebs. 

 

Life in prison without a possibility to get out is cruel and its a waste of resources. Why bother with putting someone in a small cage for the rest of his life? Why not simply put a bullet in their brains and be done with it. I mean, he is either going to die in jail when he is old, without being able to do anything with his life, or we simply skip 30-60 years of pointlessly putting someone in a cage and go right to the stage where they die. If you treat animals like that you can go to jail yourself, but its okay if we let the system do that to actual people. 

[glazert 89]

Lettres de cachet rules illegal.

 

Does anyone besides me thing the European Union is soft on crime?

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong! The European Court of Human Rights is NOT a European Union Institution. It is an institution of the Council of Europe not the EU. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the European Convention of Human Rights. See http://human-rights-convention.org/

[basty_goofy 24]

This is for the good. If the people are rehabilitated, they will get back into society and contribute towards it.

When it comes to dangerous individuals who have committed horrible crimes, you can be sure they will not be released following evaluation.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think the most dangerous offenders should be shot. Simple. 

 

The worst offenders it would make more sense to keep in jail for moral reasons as well as re-educating those who can be. 

 

Really if somebody is never going to fit in and be normal they should be shot, as they are a waste of resources and prison capacity. 

 

However those who show promising signs of wishing to be normal and who do not wish to commit crimes should naturally be assessed according to their individual nature. Some people commit 'horrible' crimes because they are forced to. (Like stabbing someone for a loaf of bread or wtvr)

 

Life sentences... for certain crimes... Do satisfy the thorough approach. Reassessment is something which imho should only be carried out if there is a general public feeling that it is for the best. 

[Bipin 3,403]

The problem with a lot of incarceration systems is that they don't reintegrate members of society who have deviated from the norm (criminals in this case) back into said society. It's essentially punishment, but with minimal chance of being rehabilitated, akin to the mental hospitals of the early to middle 20th century where patients who could quite easily be rehabilitated stayed in the prison/hospital for much of their lives. This was due to a lack of programs which resolved the problem at hand, thus letting it deteriorate; no intervention to repair such issues.

 

I'd say inmates who do not respond positively to any form of rehabilitation and reintegration into social norms should receive life imprisonment. I believe every individual should have a chance to prove their worth to society, and ability to re-integrate. Not at one stage in their imprisonment, but rather continuously be evaluated. If they cannot ever achieve the goals required for reestablishing these norms, then for all intents and purposes, they are imprisoned for life. Of course, one must be open to realizing that with some especially heinous crimes, the chance of rehabilitation is minimal at best and the aforementioned system doesn't apply to every offender, but I'd say it works for the majority.

[Bipin 3,403]

However those who show promising signs of wishing to be normal and who do not wish to commit crimes should naturally be assessed according to their individual nature. Some people commit 'horrible' crimes because they are forced to. (Like stabbing someone for a loaf of bread or wtvr)

 

This reminds me of the Heinz Dilemma, which presents moral issues such as what you described:

 

 

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to double post. Is there a way to delete this second one?

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

I tend to agree that life imprisonment is cruel and should be avoided.  Here such a sentence is limited to 14 years.  However, for truly dangerous offenders, so declared, we have a Lieutenant Governor's Warrant which commits such people until such time as they are judged no longer dangerous.  There is a biennial review.  The venue for such incarceration is generally a mental health facility.

 

From an administrative point of view, life sentences that truly are are wasteful in the extreme.  It makes the state into the worst murderer, the one who murders freedom.  The Middle Ages solution would be to send the prisoner to a higher court for final disposition.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Dilemma 1: No because she will die anyway one day and because it is silly to break and enter.\

Dilemma 2: No because he is a friend of Heinz and would understand his reasoning.

Dilemma 3: No because he didn't commit an immoral act, if an illegal one.

 

 

I think the problem is those imprisoned for honourable, but illegal actions. Take the suffragettes or Nelson Mandela. The problem with the concept of punishment is it requires 'evil' to exist and be definable. I think punishment is really just a form of revenge, dressed up to look like re-education and deterrent to commit crime. Jails shouldn't be sardine cans like aeroplanes. They should just be plainly furnished and basic, like in a nunnery. Prisoners should be served simple meals and treated with dignity and respect, but no warmth or individual recognition. They should be treated like soldiers or monks, as equals.

 

They should be housed by themselves and have no company beside prison officers and visitors. They should have limited excersize and time out of their cell, and should be given nothing but improving pastimes. (I.E no televisions or X Boxes, but books of an intelligent nature)

 

Those who are 'evil' or mad or wtvr should be dealt with as the individual case demands. A man who wishes to continue his evil ways should be shot unless he shows signs of wishing to redeem himself.

 

I think there is an argument for shooting some of the worst crims. We rip out weeds in a garden without a second thought, yet they are 'living creatures' who just happened to be unfortunate enough to grow around more prized plants. We eat meat without a thought. We spray insects as though they were flying dirt. Should we treat a rapist or murderer better than a plant?

 

 

 

[Bdub01 201]

Ahhh that's what I love about living in Texas, just execute the convicted and move on. Why waste all the tax payer money to keep them in prison for life? I guess Europe doesn't execute anymore... I remember many Europeans were upset when America executed Timothy McVaigh of the Oklahoma City bombing.

[timmie 988]

Countries cannot join the EU if their legislation allows the killing of prisoners. The same goes for the Council of Europe.

It is forbidden in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Execution is a dangerous thing.  What if the conviction is false for some reason or other.  After referring the victim to the justice of God, what should be done with those responsible for the wrongful conviction, whether deliberately or by inadvertence.  Hanging D.A.s and judges give me a large pain in my ethics.

 

The other thing that bothers me greatly is electing these people.  Our system selects them and employs them as civil servants dependent on evident capability, not some popularity contest.

[krbe 193]

Life imprisonment is overrated anyway. It is more out of revenge than out of the question what's good for society. Norway has no life imprisonment and has 'luxurious' prisons, which would make them 'soft on crime', yet their policies seem to be more effective than in other countries.

 

We do have provisions to keep prisoners for life -- it just has to be done in 10 year-increments. Denmark follows the opposite approach. Life sentences are awarded, but have to be reviewed regularly.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong! The European Court of Human Rights is NOT a European Union Institution.

Correct, and the abbrivation is ECtHR.

 

Dilemma 1: No because she will die anyway one day and because it is silly to break and enter.\

Dilemma 2: No because he is a friend of Heinz and would understand his reasoning.

Dilemma 3: No because he didn't commit an immoral act, if an illegal one.

I am curious, on (1) you seem to employ an objective standard, giving the womans life a price tag of less than $4 000 and want her to die, while on (2) you employ a subjective standard, arguing the officer should let a known criminal slip away. (3) is also highly subjective, and curiously, while you want Mrs Heinz to die - to pay the ultimate prize at a price of $2 000; you favour Mr Heinz not to pay for the obvious crime he committed. Why is it that while Mrs Heinz life is without value, Mr Heinz should not be punished for his crimes, with a very clear value attached?

Should we treat a rapist or murderer better than a plant?

Yes. Or at least that has been the prevailing thought the last couple of hundreds years. I am however familiar with certain sectors of the population that seem to believe that they themselves ought to be compared with plants (I would have gone for "vegetable" in that case, but alas, I do not believe plants and humans are comparable. Sometimes that can be unfortunate). Funnily enough, those who would like to be judged on par with plants are often those who seem to think it is somehow uncivilised to cut of peoples' hands, or dread beheaders who are out removing what I can only assume to be human weed.

 

Ahhh that's what I love about living in Texas, just execute the convicted and move on. Why waste all the tax payer money to keep them in prison for life? I guess Europe doesn't execute anymore... I remember many Europeans were upset when America executed Timothy McVaigh of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Your post seem to imply that you care how your tax money are being spent, while you seem to be oblivious to the cost of the death penalty. Do you love Texas because of their skills with with the syringe and in scavenging drug stores for finding less and less effective drugs for killing people, or because of the exorbitant sums they use on keeping death row prisoners alive? Or are you rather arguing in favour of a savage tyranny executing all convicted persons?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Ahhh that's what I love about living in Texas, just execute the convicted and move on. Why waste all the tax payer money to keep them in prison for life? I guess Europe doesn't execute anymore... I remember many Europeans were upset when America executed Timothy McVaigh of the Oklahoma City bombing.

So what?, they execute 3 or 4 a year,there's 1000s of death row inmates in the Texas prison system alone much less the other states. if they were to start killing  a few every day it would take years to finish and i think the executions would end quickly.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Ahhh that's what I love about living in Texas, just execute the convicted and move on. Why waste all the tax payer money to keep them in prison for life? I guess Europe doesn't execute anymore... I remember many Europeans were upset when America executed Timothy McVaigh of the Oklahoma City bombing.

They get like 7 hearings in front of a court when they are sentenced to death. Which is the primary reason its actually cheaper to put someone in jail, rather than executing them. DA's and judges tend to cost a lot of money and as a result the appeal process is rather costly. 

 

And indeed, the death penalty is abolished in the EU. Though if you find a severe enough crime, the majority of people are more than willing to sentence people to death. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Sentencing is a lot harsher in the US compared to Europe. But there's a stark difference in cultural philosophy. The concept of rehabilitating people who have committed serious crimes is generally not accepted in the US, and our sentencing is thus designed more with the idea in mind that we need to lock such people up for as long as we can in order to prevent them from committing further crimes. And yes, there is a hint of revenge involved, we do tend to interpret "justice" to mean "I want to see the person who hurt me suffer".

 

By far the biggest contributor, though, is American policies on illegal drugs. In many places in the US you will likely end up doing prison time for being caught in possession of even a small amount of marijuana, a harshness which is unheard of in Europe. This is further not helped by the fact that in some states we have prisons which are operated by private companies for profit. For those companies, more prisoners equals more customers, and so they of course lobby for harsher sentencing.

[Odainsaker 2,137]

Europe used to break people on the wheel, guillotine them in public, hang them rotting from gibbets, and even disemboweled them alive.  Alas, crimes continued to occur.  Nowadays, we give them free cable television, weight rooms to buff up for the next gang hit, and tattoo parlors...coddling just feeds the underground prison gang, where incarceration is a badge of honor, and maintains the revolving door prison, where jail stints are an acceptable part of the lifestyle.

 

Perhaps what we need are conditioning prisons, where a battery of stimuli control, psychotherapy, and sedative drugs are administered to reprogram criminals back into socially acceptable, or at least socially productive, citizens.  After all, the usual conditioning and soft indoctrination that comes through normal education and socialization has failed, and so a new emergency regimen is required to repattern the behavioral miswiring.  Those who have committed minor crimes will require minor readjustments, while those who have committed serious crimes will require a more intensive medical correction.  This is not "torture," it is "induced rehabilitation."  It is not "brainwashing, it is "mental cleansing."  We will no longer have "prisons," but "behavior hospitals."

 

 

No one will want to come back.  Indeed, serious potential recidivists will, through conditioning, be unable to neurologically process even the thought of committing crimes.  They will have been "rendered reformed," and we will have done away with inhumane or costly executions and lifetime physical detentions.  No malice, merely compliance.

[timmie 988]

<snip>

 

This is very much what Michel Foucault described as a tendency to discipline people more and more (in his milestone book 'Discipline and Punish'). Whereas criminality used to be seen as a choice for an alternative reality, with Enlightenment, it became more of a disease. By calling it a mental disease, by calling criminals abnormal, the elites excercised power over them. They were put away, and since they were abnormal, made absolutely voiceless (because what an abnormal person says is irrelevant). This tendency to discipline is everywhere in society, he argues. Potential dangers for the order, the powerful,... are put away in prison, mental clinics, schools,... The ultimate goal is to create 'docile bodies' by labelling them and describing them as abnormal (the same process can be seen in relation to sexual orientation, he argued).

 

Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of what you propose.

[Cpt Johnny 58]

You Westerners are too soft on hardcore criminals. In the East, we still follow the olden day laws:

 

We give them 18 levels of hell

[KonstantinII 1,106]

Countries cannot join the EU if their legislation allows the killing of prisoners. The same goes for the Council of Europe.

It is forbidden in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Except for Germany

[hym 358]

Perhaps what we need are conditioning prisons, where a battery of stimuli control, psychotherapy, and sedative drugs are administered to reprogram criminals back into socially acceptable, or at least socially productive, citizens.  After all, the usual conditioning and soft indoctrination that comes through normal education and socialization has failed, and so a new emergency regimen is required to repattern the behavioral miswiring.  Those who have committed minor crimes will require minor readjustments, while those who have committed serious crimes will require a more intensive medical correction.  This is not "torture," it is "induced rehabilitation."  It is not "brainwashing, it is "mental cleansing."  We will no longer have "prisons," but "behavior hospitals."

 

No one will want to come back.  Indeed, serious potential recidivists will, through conditioning, be unable to neurologically process even the thought of committing crimes.  They will have been "rendered reformed," and we will have done away with inhumane or costly executions and lifetime physical detentions.  No malice, merely compliance.

 

You wouldn't have happened to have watched A Clockwork Orange recently, would you?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Europe used to break people on the wheel, guillotine them in public, hang them rotting from gibbets, and even disemboweled them alive.  Alas, crimes continued to occur.  Nowadays, we give them free cable television, weight rooms to buff up for the next gang hit, and tattoo parlors...coddling just feeds the underground prison gang, where incarceration is a badge of honor, and maintains the revolving door prison, where jail stints are an acceptable part of the lifestyle.

 

Perhaps what we need are conditioning prisons, where a battery of stimuli control, psychotherapy, and sedative drugs are administered to reprogram criminals back into socially acceptable, or at least socially productive, citizens.  After all, the usual conditioning and soft indoctrination that comes through normal education and socialization has failed, and so a new emergency regimen is required to repattern the behavioral miswiring.  Those who have committed minor crimes will require minor readjustments, while those who have committed serious crimes will require a more intensive medical correction.  This is not "torture," it is "induced rehabilitation."  It is not "brainwashing, it is "mental cleansing."  We will no longer have "prisons," but "behavior hospitals."

 

 

No one will want to come back.  Indeed, serious potential recidivists will, through conditioning, be unable to neurologically process even the thought of committing crimes.  They will have been "rendered reformed," and we will have done away with inhumane or costly executions and lifetime physical detentions.  No malice, merely compliance.

Except that does not fix the root of the crime. Criminals generally do not commit crimes because they enjoy it, they are pushed and pulled into it. Their problem is not so much their lack of compliance with the accepted norms, its just that they have not much alternatives they can pick from. I mean, say you want to get rich, but you had the bad luck of being born in a certain area of a certain town, where the schools don't do much good, where most of the older role models are criminals. Your parents are poor and they also happen to be immigrants from another country. As a result your ability to speak the local language is relatively bad, your school doesn't help you much, you get bad results on school and as a result you can't go to college. As a result, you can only do the low end minimum wage jobs. Lots of work, little reward. But, all around you see people who do earn quite a bit of money, but they are criminals, drug pushers, part of gangs. Sure, you know its wrong, but those guys appear to be really successful. And only working stupid low wage jobs is never going to make anyone rich.

 

And that is why there are gangs and crime. Because for a lot of people, crime is simply the more rational choice for getting materialistic success than being a law abiding citizen. Brainwashing them into compliance is not going to change that.

 

Funnily enough, here is when a soft approach to crime can actually work. You send these guys to prison, but while they are there, you educate them, teach them skills that give them a better chance in the job market. And after they get out, you help them get a decent paying job. Prison is a chance for state to make crime the more irrational choice, by helping these people earn so much money in a legal and productive way that crime is no longer an attractive way of getting your money. If you go even further and help these people get their own house in a completely different city and neighborhood, it helps to actually break up a gang. 

 

That aside, a society that places so much value on compliance tends to go rather quickly to the authoritarian side, and suddenly those 'behavior hospitals' are not only used to brainwash criminals but everyone who has a different opinion. 

[timmie 988]

 

Countries cannot join the EU if their legislation allows the killing of prisoners. The same goes for the Council of Europe.

It is forbidden in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Except for Germany

 

 

No death penalty in the Bundesrepublik either The constitution of 1949 prohibits capital punishment. The only country in Europe that still has the death penalty is Belarus (and as a consequence, it is not a member of the EU, nor the Council of Europe).

[LexusInfernus 908]

No death penalty in the Bundesrepublik either The constitution of 1949 prohibits capital punishment. The only country in Europe that still has the death penalty is Belarus (and as a consequence, it is not a member of the EU, nor the Council of Europe).

 

Last remaining open dictatorship in Europe. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

"I am curious, on (1) you seem to employ an objective standard, giving the womans life a price tag of less than $4 000 and want her to die, while on (2) you employ a subjective standard, arguing the officer should let a known criminal slip away. (3) is also highly subjective, and curiously, while you want Mrs Heinz to die - to pay the ultimate prize at a price of $2 000; you favour Mr Heinz not to pay for the obvious crime he committed. Why is it that while Mrs Heinz life is without value, Mr Heinz should not be punished for his crimes, with a very clear value attached?"

 

It would seem the most rational thing to do, given the very dilemmaesque nature of this situation, to side on both teams and fire in two directions.

 

I believe that there is a definable 'good' and 'evil' but we must be careful with these concepts. They are extremely powerful. The best method for all people in authority to follow is the Jedi method, not the Sith method. However there is nothing wrong with the Imperial method. 

 

The death sentence is not immoral, it is no worse a 'crime' than weeding lantana or blackberry bushes, or culling weak animals. The worst criminals will never be rehabilitated. If the probability of their being saved is so low that it is inefficient to keep putting resources into their continued existence, I say shoot them/humanely kill them wtvr.

 

However not all criminals choose to have a life of crime. Yes there are 'evil' types who, for whatever reason, will never be saved. But many people come from backgrounds where crime is almost a necessity just to get by. There are many parts of the world where crimes have to be committed unless you want to die a martyr's death or be a pauper for eternity.

 

Whenever populations outweigh resources, fights occur and imbalances cause wars and criminality. Ghettos aren't lifestyle zones for those of a criminal persuasion, they arose from hard economic times and poor social policies/resources. 

 

The death 'penalty' shouldn't be called that. It isn't a punishment, it's a method of dealing with a problem. Punishment is archaic and backwards and based upon superstitious beliefs in an 'evil' force in criminals we now know to be the result of 'mental illness' etc. 

[KonstantinII 1,106]

 

No death penalty in the Bundesrepublik either

Maybe not for citizens but for prisoners of war and Jews. Also they use torture.

[timmie 988]

 

 

No death penalty in the Bundesrepublik either

Maybe not for citizens but for prisoners of war and Jews. Also they use torture.

 

 

Let me remind you of the fact that today is July 10, 2013, and that the Bundesrepublik Deutschland is a strong and modern liberal democracy.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

^^Yeah and a liberal democracy started two wold wars and committed genocide.