Originally Posted by dboy

Prisons are a necessary evil, although we can learn how not to do it by looking south. A don't even get me stated on how a supposedly civilized country still executes people.

The Victorians viewed the removal of one's freedoms as punishment enough, as is the view held by most countries, other than the US, where it seems to be okay to send people to jail for extended periods under deplorable conditions. Some places have even brought back the chain gang.

The US is a surprisingly backward country in many ways.

Originally Posted by dboy

Prisons are a necessary evil, although we can learn how not to do it by looking south. A don't even get me stated on how a supposedly civilized country still executes people.

The Victorians viewed the removal of one's freedoms as punishment enough, as is the view held by most countries, other than the US, where it seems to be okay to send people to jail for extended periods under deplorable conditions. Some places have even brought back the chain gang.

The US is a surprisingly backward country in many ways.

Originally Posted by The Aviator

What about the victims of crime? The convicts have it easier than many of their victims, are out in a short space of time to repeat offend. The US seems to be one of the few countries that has any idea how to deal with the problem of crime. If punishments fitted the crime, perhaps we would have less crime. Prisons a necessary evil? There are some very evil people in prison. As nice as it is to have TV in jail, a golf course and swimming pool, free healthcare, all at the expense of the taxpayer, perhaps these people should be put to work to benefit the society that is keeping them.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian

Please explain why it is not civilized to execute, let's say, a murderer who has agreed that the crime was committed, supported by significant corroborating evidence and who has been diagnosed by those qualified to do so that there is no chance of rehabilitation? It is not akin to having an animal in a cage at a zoo (except for the public viewing). Please explain to me what purpose is achieved by keeping them alive?

I worked in the English Prison Service. I guess you would call it "civilised incarceration". The inmates thought that it was a joke. Single cells, access to state of the art gymnasium facilities. A choice of 5 meals each day (they were allowed to choose which of the 5 they wanted). Specialised diets (vegetarian, etc.) No prison uniform (they could wear what they wanted) and this was after conviction, not while on remand.

Yes they lost their liberty but for offences that were not normally their first and they had usually been through the entire Court system for years prior to the judge having little alternative but to give them a custodial sentence.

When you say "most" countries, do you actually mean "most" western liberal countries? I doubt that perpetrators of crimes such as murder would be treated as leniently in China, huge swathes of Africa or the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Alan2005

So prisoners have it comfy therefore some of them must die. I can't fault your logic there AC.

Originally Posted by Alan2005

If you think it's so great in prison, go and commit some crimes and live the rest of your days in comfort playing golf. Not up for that? thought not.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian

Where did I say that?

Please provide me with justification for not executing somebody in the fact scenario I gave above? For the purposes of this discussion, let's not get into the whole "it is only for God to decide who should live or die" debate.

Originally Posted by The Aviator

What a stupid and childish comment to make. Only serves to illustrate you don't have a credible argument to make.

Originally Posted by Alan2005

What? You said prisons were cushy places with medicare, tv and golf courses. Can't be that cushy if you don't want to go there yourself.

Originally Posted by The Aviator

I don't have time for a vacation right now, thanks for the offer though. Send me a postcard when you settle in.

Originally Posted by Alan2005

As there is no god to make that decision either way you won't hear that from me. I find it abhorrent that people are so willing to see others killed. It's murder, just because the state is doing it does not sanitize it or make it not the case.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian

Do you believe that soldiers should be allowed to kill the enemy?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian

I never said otherwise. So, I take it, you agree that keeping them alive at very great expense when they will never be integrated back into society is preferable to "murder". So an eye for an eye but, in essence, a blind one rather than a "useful" one?

Do you believe that soldiers should be allowed to kill the enemy?

I don't have a problem with killing someone that has killed another on the basis of the fact scenario I set out above. Call it retribution, call it whatever you like, the person so killed will never be able to kill again. They chose to do the killing and, if the law said that they were to be killed if caught, they can hardly complain about that after the fact.

Originally Posted by Alan2005

You are very quick to decide that an abstract concept called 'the state' should murder people to appease your sense of justice.

Apart from the morality of it, You cannot guarantee that you have all the evidence and are 100% sure of your conviction; if you want the death penalty you are basically saying you will accept the odd innocent or mentally ill person to be murdered as the price.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian

I said that this is how I feel about it, you obviously feel very differently. I cannot guarantee anything but, as I have previously stated, on the fact scenario I gave above, I would have little hesitation in allowing the perpetrator to be killed.

You have chosen not to answer my query about soldiers killing the enemy. I have been shot at and have fatally shot a number of enemy. If you are not prepared to execute prisoners but are prepared to allow our soldiers to execute the enemy (who are likely to be husbands, fathers, sons, etc that have committed no wrong other than to have been born in a different country) then I feel you "moral" argument is abhorrent.

If it is not your position that soldiers should be allowed to kill the enemy then what alternative do you suggest?

The perpetrator the crime as outlined above chose to commit the crime.

I appreciate you may think I am a right wing nutter, you may also appreciate that I may think you a "sophisticated liberal" who assumes that all the bad people in the world are just misunderstood. I guess we will never see eye to eye on this, but I am interested in your opinion.