Justice

And while I'm on a role, a slightly more contiversial discussion.

Whats everyone reaction to the Moussaoui sentancing?
(link)

I'm undecided!! On one side, if he is not deserving of the fullest punishment under the law then who is?! If he carries out his mission he'd not be alive to stand trial so who can ever be given the death penalty for terror cases?!

On the other side, having him waste away behind bars surrounded by "infidels" sounds like a punishment worse than death for him!!

I hear what Polts is saying. If he is allowed to mingle with the rest of the prison population, he's not going to last long anyway.

It couldnt have been easy being a juror in that trial. Six weeks for the sentencing hearing alone? I'm not about to question their decision, as I'm sure it was well considered.

Well, I don't support the death penalty anyway.

In this sort of case in particular, I would also agree that the death penalty would potentially be akin to "martyrdom" and that locking him up for the rest of his life is probably the better option.

I have no problem with the death penalty, but given that Moussaoui was all but screaming "Inject me, already" to the jurors, I do have to wonder if the sentence wasn't, in part, specifically to spite that wish. Which disturbs me.

A sentencing is a punishment so that does not disturb me at all. Also, I strongly disagree with the death penalty regardless of their sin. In my mind, that brutish practice should have been abolished when Jesus said that whoever had never done anything bad could chunk the first rock. I think that applies to giving people the squirt as well.

Fedele:

A sentencing is a punishment so that does not disturb me at all. Also, I strongly disagree with the death penalty regardless of their sin. In my mind, that brutish practice should have been abolished when Jesus said that whoever had never done anything bad could chunk the first rock. I think that applies to giving people the squirt as well.

Click to expand...

It depends on how you view justice, should it be for the preservation of society or just simple vengeance?

I was under the impression that it was for the preservation of society regardless of whether you punished or rehabilitated the criminals. If anyone looks at punishing the criminals for no reason other than revenge for what they have done to society, they are thinking with their heart and not their head.

The problem is that rehabilitation doesn't work. Look at the 'revolving door' and repeat offenders. When someone takes part in something so terrible they can never become a productive member of society again. Nor would they be accepted if they tried. A life sentence without parole is simple a death sentence that takes 40 or 50 years to carry out and at the expense of about $50,000 per year.

This b*stard did win when you get right down to it. He gets free food, free medical care, clothing, TV and a roof over his head. I ask you, what's the point of that? I suppose some ACLU nut will come along and say "oh, let the poor slob out. Life in prison is 'torture'." The most humane solution for all involved would have been to publicly hang the S.O.B. The same thing goes for Ossama Bin Laden if they ever catch his sorry arse.

Just like Charlie Manson. What is the point of keeping that sorry sack of feces alive all these years and sucking down tax dollars like a drunken sailor at an open keg party? I mean, why?! So he can be interviewed by the likes of Geraldo Rivera and make funny faces and jestures and drivvel on inanely about the meaning of dog snot and how it relates to the coming race wars? WTF?!

Anyone who thinks Moussaoui can be rehabilitated needs his head examined. Moussaoui needs to take a major dirt nap, ASAP.

Fed:

In my mind, that brutish practice should have been abolished when Jesus said that whoever had never done anything bad could chunk the first rock.

Click to expand...

[ off color humor alert ]

My brother is a minister and he is totally against capital punishment. His says only God has a right to take someone's life. My brother the minister came up with the proper solution for this conundrum. We take Moussaoui up in an airplane to 30,000 feet and chuck him out the door without a parachute. If God wants him to live, he will.

[ /off color humor alert ]

A clear example of someone viewing justice as a tool for vengeance.

As for rehabilitation, I completely disagree. It does work as long as it is properly done. Stuffing all the bank robbers in a maximum security jail only makes more pissed off bank robbers with new bank robber friends!

As for killing citizens just because it's cheaper than jail sentences well that explains itself. After all why even have due process clog up court rooms and pay for all those expensive judges? Kill em all! Let god sort them out!!

Someone always has to leap the middle ground and jump to an extreme when someone disagrees with them!!

If someone has been found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" of a heinous crime such as mass murder (whether it be using a bomb, gun or any other weapon!!) then I have no problem with the death penalty being applied!! Saying that people who view the death penalty as an option would want to do away with a trial and due process are deliberately misrepresenting the argument for the death penalty because it is easier for them to dismiss people's arguments if they make them so proposterous!!

While Roman has his unique style of getting his point across, there are some parts of what he says that make sense!!

Why should someone who is guilty beyond reasonable doubt be given a chance at rehabilitation (as slim as that chance may be!!) when the innocent victims or their crime and their families do not have that chance to "start again"?!

Once again, it depends on how you view justice be it for the preservation of society or an eye for an eye.

But how has the track record for convictions been in any Western country? The United States has a horrid record of actually convicting the guilty parties! Add in the racial profiling and the absurd fact that thirteen percent of African Americans have been disenfranchised because of it, I'd be much more hesitant to flip the switch or hang anybody.

Think about the principle too, what right does the government have to say murder is wrong when it does so in kind?

It doesn't act as a deterrent since Texas isn't THE most safe state in the US, despite having an execution rated only rivaled by Red China.

So once again, if you feel that justice is only an eye for an eye, commiting that which we condemn then so be it. I however I disagree.

As for those who don't believe in rehabilitation:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ats_051121.html

Also Bootcamp is in no way rehabilitation, community service however is.

Roman, I think there's a problem with mashing the two ideas of rehabilitation and punishment in prisons together -- American prisons don't rehabilitate because they aren't really designed to because enough people still think they ought to be designed as and for punishment. As far as I'm concerned, a jail term means "you belong to the state for X period of time," and the state needs to take that time to figure out what it needs to do to you to not commit the crime again.

Just the idea of prisons is relatively new; the word murder comes from the amount of money a murderer was supposed to pay to the victim's family. There was still a graded system of punishment where different offences cost different amounts and I can see how once we started using prisons there would be a range of sentences up to the maximum of 'the rest of your life' even if it doesn't make much sense from a prison as paying-a-debt-to-society standpoint.

The state can try to make you atone for your crimes by sticking you with other criminals and let you find ways to pass the time, or the state can try to give some sort of positive action to actually convince you not to break the law. It can be education, therapy or hypnosis as far as I'm concerned, but a society which can actually implement this positive action is going to be much better off than one which can't.

Hmmm.

Personally I think the sentence was the only one that would make sense. In all the news from the trial I heard, he appeared to me as some kind of delusional incompetent, desperately wanting to be a terrorist, but more than likely to screw it up if he tried. He almost seemed to be trying to make the justice system finish the job he was incapable of doing. And yeah, you can say he won by not getting the death sentence, but we'd have been saying that if he had of as well...

^ I agree with that as well. I didn't believe him at all when he said he was part of a 5th plane supposed to attack the White House, reversing what he had been saying the previous 2.5 years about being part of a planned second wave. Much of his appointed defence lawyers' approach to the case was to highlight his psychological state to use his delusions and erratic behavior in court to try to get him life in prison.

Unterwasserseestaat:

Roman, I think there's a problem with mashing the two ideas of rehabilitation and punishment in prisons together -- American prisons don't rehabilitate because they aren't really designed to because enough people still think they ought to be designed as and for punishment. As far as I'm concerned, a jail term means "you belong to the state for X period of time," and the state needs to take that time to figure out what it needs to do to you to not commit the crime again.

Just the idea of prisons is relatively new; the word murder comes from the amount of money a murderer was supposed to pay to the victim's family. There was still a graded system of punishment where different offences cost different amounts and I can see how once we started using prisons there would be a range of sentences up to the maximum of 'the rest of your life' even if it doesn't make much sense from a prison as paying-a-debt-to-society standpoint.

The state can try to make you atone for your crimes by sticking you with other criminals and let you find ways to pass the time, or the state can try to give some sort of positive action to actually convince you not to break the law. It can be education, therapy or hypnosis as far as I'm concerned, but a society which can actually implement this positive action is going to be much better off than one which can't.

Click to expand...

Paragraph 1. I absolutely agree. The problem is that a jury in sentencing is supposed to do that in death penalty cases. The irony is that the 'penitentary' system in the US was designed to do just that - rehabilitate. By the 1930's it was evident that rehabilitation was a farce. Anyone who ends up 'rehabilitated' usually didn't need to end up in prison in the first place for any number of reasons.

The biggest flaw in criminal sentencing is that there is too much elapsed time between someone being charged and someone being punished if and when they are convicted. This means that there is a diminished mental association in the criminal's mind between the crime committed and the punishment. This leads to the belief amongst most criminals that they are being punished not because they committed a crime but because they got caught. In their minds, getting caught is the crime, not the criminal act that landed them in trouble in the first place.

Another biggie flaw in the US justice system is that while it is intended that one is innocent until proved guilty the fact is that it is just the reverse; one is in all practical terms guilty until proven otherwise. It's actually not a justice problem but a law enforcement problem, but that's another issue.

The level of recidivism is clear evidence that there is no rehabilitation and than prisons are not effective at either punishment or rehabilitation. In the mean time, every attempt at both has been tried to no avail.

One of the problems we have is that there are too many laws to be violated, most of which are totally inane laws. I do not condone the consumption of illegal drugs, but I have issue with punishing users instead of going after the distributors. The theory currently is that if you deny the distributers customers the market dies. Applying market theory to crime is absurd. If you catch a drug dealer and shoot him, the supply rapidly dries up regardless of the demand. Imperial China largely solved the opium problem in a flash by simply executing convicted opium dealers. Brutal, but effective.

Paragraph 2. Yes, in the scheme of things, prisons, or rather the idea of confinement as a punishment, is a recent idea. The Romans used 'carcers' or holding places for felons until they were brutally punished for whatever crime they committed. The Romans punished. We coddle.

Crime is an ever existing problem and will never be eliminated ('Marginal 10% theory' and such). The murder rate (and the capital punishment rate for that matter) has gone up since the elimination of public executions. I think public hangings go a long way in deterring potential murderers and rapists. Hanging a murderer or rapist assures everyone that the executed person never commits that crime (or any crime) again.

Paragraph 3. The idea you seem to being driving at is to study criminals so as to gain knowledge of how to deter crime. I agree, but criminals should be studied in the same way we study cancer; with the intent to eliminating criminals and crime. There are some people whose crimes are so heinous that the only appropriate sentence is death. Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Ossama Bin Laden and a whole parade of other loonies. Could you imagine trying to rehabilitate a Hitler?

I do believe, though, that certain criminals can be rehabilitated different ways. Thieves should get hard labor, petophiles get psychological treatment for a minimum of __ years and a maximum of until they are cured, etc. Murder should not be punished with killing, though. Extreme public humiliation would be my preferred punishment and would likely be more effective than killing them at preventing others from committing their crime.

Fedele:

I do believe, though, that certain criminals can be rehabilitated different ways. Thieves should get hard labor, petophiles get psychological treatment for a minimum of __ years and a maximum of until they are cured, etc. Murder should not be punished with killing, though. Extreme public humiliation would be my preferred punishment and would likely be more effective than killing them at preventing others from committing their crime.

Click to expand...

Do you think the world really is separated between the law breaking "bad guys" and perfect societal automaton "good guys?"

Fedele:

.........pedophiles get psychological treatment for a minimum of __ years and a maximum of until they are cured, etc.

Click to expand...

Pedophiles and rapists should get rehabilitation in the form of surgical alteration.

Well, paedophilia is a mental disorder. I'm not saying that it is justified but I am saying that in the case of mental disorders the person should be rehabilitated and not destroyed. As for cutting off their cock, well, I can't find a good enough reason to dispute that so I'll leave it alone for now.

Do you think the world really is separated between the law breaking "bad guys" and perfect societal automaton "good guys?"

Click to expand...

Are we having the same conversation?

Fedele:

Do you think the world really is separated between the law breaking "bad guys" and perfect societal automaton "good guys?"

Click to expand...

Are we having the same conversation?

Click to expand...

I just feel like asking why you feel like using inhuman measures against criminals, harsh responses that only seek to crush and batter a human being. So do you feel that criminals are less deserving or forfeit their right to be treated with dignity?

Well, criminals forfeit their right to freedom clearly, and inherent in that is a loss of some amount of dignity -- the dignity to go where you please (within the bounds of the law), and do what you please.

Having said that, I don't think public humiliation is the answer -- as a matter of fact, that's already been tried (stocks in the town square and such).