Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should we send people to the army instead of jail

Announcements Posted on
The News & Current Affairs and Society forums need more moderators! 20-04-2014
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No, because being in the Army isn't an individual thing, your safety depends on the actions of your comrades. I very much doubt that people in the Army would want to rely on some criminals, whose actions could endanger the lives of the whole team.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dada55)
    The point is that if they commit a serious crime then they should face the consequences.
    At no point did I suggest anything to the contrary. Your earlier claims were about the possession of a sense of morality, which is very different to the topic of crime and punishment.

    Why should a murderer have a "right of life" if he made that choice to take away someone elses? And like I mentioned in my first post, the idea that punishing criminals "inhumanely" is the same as being criminals is ridicilous.
    This is the nature of what a human right is, and with good reason. Once you begin creating circumstances in which people can lose their fundamental rights, you've undermined the very idea of what a fundamental right is. If you decide that the judicial system is capable of taking away a person's fundamental rights, you're in very dangerous territory - would you allow the judicial system to take away a person's right to a fair trial?

    If you commit something unhonourable without justice then you do not deserve any pity as you had your choice, you made the wrong one.
    And yet earlier you state that people makes mistakes and are capable of change. People deserve to face the consequences of the mistakes they make, but I do not believe they should be robbed of their humanity for them.

    I'm not saying all laws are right and there are always special cases in each crime but the reality is: The people who will never in their lifes commit serious crimes suffer because of other people's poor choices and because of the lack of a proper criminal system.
    To say that law abiding citizens suffer at the hands of criminals is, of course, a truism. To say that this is the fault of the judicial system confuses me. There are indeed occasions when prisoners finish their sentences and go on to commit further serious crimes. But it is far too simple to use this fact to justify keeping serious offenders out of society permanently. Indeed, the same logic could be used to pre-emptively imprison young men from deprived areas because, like ex-offenders, they are more likely to commit crimes. But that is of course utterly unjustifiable.

    If you find a way to change every criminal to become a good moral citizen then by so means do so but when thats not possible, remove them from society.
    The perfect solution would be for there to be no reason for people to commit crime but it is obvious that such a day will never come.
    Reform is indeed possible, and it should be the aim of the judicial system to balance the ability to reform those criminals who are reformable with protecting the public from those who aren't. Removing the human rights of criminals and proclaiming them 'without morality' is certainly not conducive to reforming anyone.

    An interesting question to ask yourself is this: Would you prefer a society where every person who commits a serious crime goes on to reform their lives and never transgress again, or a society where every person who commits a serious crime is killed or locked up permanently? If you would prefer the former, then you have to agree that at least attempting reform is a positive thing. If you would prefer the latter, then you have to wonder whether you're expecting the judicial system to punish rather than protect.

    I just find it so annoying that it is so much easier for the criminal then it is for the victim. Even with self-defence, if someone attacks you, you have to make sure you use "reasonable force" to protect yourself. If someone has the darn right to attack me without cause, then I should have the right to do whatever it takes for me to feel safe again.
    This strikes me as rather tabloid-influenced reasoning. This isn't evidence based and therefore shouldn't form part of your argument.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)

    This is the nature of what a human right is, and with good reason. Once you begin creating circumstances in which people can lose their fundamental rights, you've undermined the very idea of what a fundamental right is. If you decide that the judicial system is capable of taking away a person's fundamental rights, you're in very dangerous territory - would you allow the judicial system to take away a person's right to a fair trial?
    If there is sufficient evidence that you tried to take away someone's else's rights then you do not deserve to have yours. If a judge/ government/anyone takes away someone else's rights unjustifiable they should too face the consequences. That is my idea, you make an unjustifiable choice to remove someone elses rights then you do not deserve any yourself.


    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    And yet earlier you state that people makes mistakes and are capable of change. People deserve to face the consequences of the mistakes they make, but I do not believe they should be robbed of their humanity for them.
    People can change and do make mistakes, but if you make such a serious mistake then you do not deserve a seccond chance. It's not like no one told them "killing/rape/stealing is wrong" They knew it and still did it.

    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    To say that law abiding citizens suffer at the hands of criminals is, of course, a truism. To say that this is the fault of the judicial system confuses me. There are indeed occasions when prisoners finish their sentences and go on to commit further serious crimes. But it is far too simple to use this fact to justify keeping serious offenders out of society permanently. Indeed, the same logic could be used to pre-emptively imprison young men from deprived areas because, like ex-offenders, they are more likely to commit crimes. But that is of course utterly unjustifiable.
    There is a very big difference here, criminals have showed that they are capable of commiting the crimes. While certain people might be more likely to do crime, unless they actually get the guts to do it, they haven't taken anyone elses rights and thus do not deserve any punishment.

    Truism? The whole thing that annoys me is that everyone focusses their attention on the criminals and some defend them others don't but in the end the victims get nothing. It's just so much more simple for the criminals then it is for the victims. It should be the other way around.

    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    Reform is indeed possible, and it should be the aim of the judicial system to balance the ability to reform those criminals who are reformable with protecting the public from those who aren't. Removing the human rights of criminals and proclaiming them 'without morality' is certainly not conducive to reforming anyone.

    An interesting question to ask yourself is this: Would you prefer a society where every person who commits a serious crime goes on to reform their lives and never transgress again, or a society where every person who commits a serious crime is killed or locked up permanently? If you would prefer the former, then you have to agree that at least attempting reform is a positive thing. If you would prefer the latter, then you have to wonder whether you're expecting the judicial system to punish rather than protect.
    The problem with reforms is that again the criminal gets the attention while the victim gets nothing. The only real solution that would be fair is to stop crime before it happens and if it does happen then the criminals should get no seccond chances. That is my opinion.
    Reforms that work properly will suffice 99.999% of the population, but what about the victims? What do they get out of it that after a few years everyone would of forgotten their pain and that person will be walking free living their live?

    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    This strikes me as rather tabloid-influenced reasoning. This isn't evidence based and therefore shouldn't form part of your argument.
    Every self defence situation is dealt differently but your rudely assuming my judgement has been influenced by tabloids.
    I stand by my opinion that if anyone attempts to or does take away someone elses rights, then they lose theirs. So if someone enters my house and tries to steal then I can use whatever force needed to stop him.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    i guess it depends what crime but for the majority no definitely not ...
    thieves and murderers etc. of course not would you want someone with a history of gratuitous violence, theft and killing strangers having your back in combat? i certainly wouldnt.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Maybe yutes could do with weapons training, might stop them from shooting 5 year olds.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's not viable from a military perspective. Some militaries have previously used "penal battalions" for mine-clearing or suicidal attacks, but these are usually totalitarian societies...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Oh yeah, there's a big thankyou to our armed forces personnel, ship them off to afghanistan then when they come back stick them in a base with criminals and thugs.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    It's not viable from a military perspective. Some militaries have previously used "penal battalions" for mine-clearing or suicidal attacks, but these are usually totalitarian societies...
    So tempting!
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No, because you are effectively giving a criminal weapons and training how to use them. That knowledge will stay with the criminal for life. Do you want to do that?

    A person who doesn't want to be there can be a real danger to the Army, as there could potentially be friendly fire incidents.

    Also, is sending them to Afghanistan really going to reform them? In any case, it would make them more hardened against the society and the state.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: April 2, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.