The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Will we ever be able to abolish prisons?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Rakas21
I must admit that he'd be a grey area in my idea and for that reason we'd probably have to keep a second class of prison for persistent minor offenders. The fact that he's actually being permitted to walk free while comitting 300 offenses shows how broken the current sentencing system is though.



Forced labour camps are going too far however i have wondered if we could not create prisons on some of the islands off the west coast of Scotland to remove the threat to the bulk of the nation.


Unless you propose to make the Hunger Games alike show out of them, the idea seems pretty much useless considering those dangerous people will be released anyway and so, will present danger to the public. What's so bad about making people who do the crime work?
We should replace prisons by a combination of corporal and capital punishment, which would be both cheaper for the taxpayer and more effective at deterring crime.
Original post by Iridocyclitis
What alternative is there but prison to protect the public?

Also how would you distinguish punishments for the most serious crimes if you could be fined both for shoplifting and for murder?


Capital punishment... bang and the offender is gone. *
Original post by Observatory
We should replace prisons by a combination of corporal and capital punishment, which would be both cheaper for the taxpayer and more effective at deterring crime.


I thought you were a libertarian?

That said, i am sympathetic to the idea that murderers who plead guilty could be executed instead of given a life sentence.
Original post by Rakas21
I thought you were a libertarian?

That said, i am sympathetic to the idea that murderers who plead guilty could be executed instead of given a life sentence.


Then, no one would plead such. Proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is sufficient.
Original post by Rakas21
I thought you were a libertarian?
I am, but how are those proposals less libertarian than prison?

Prison is slavery, with increasingly a creepy vibe of state thought programming ("rehabilitation").

I'd rather we just whipped people who broke social norms or whatever and released them the same day, rather than keeping them as slaves in a box doing nothing (except maybe listening to state propaganda) for months or years.

Corporal punishment is also a more concrete and thus effective deterrent to the low IQ crowd responsible for most crime. Prison might in fact be worse, but it's worse for abstract, long term reasons they have trouble understanding.
Original post by BIGJohnson777
Then, no one would plead such. Proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is sufficient.


Unfortunately i believe that one of the most important tenants which the state should uphold is not harming its citizens and so even one wrong conviction that resulted in an execution would be something that i'd deem too morally abhorrent.

I think you'd be surprised how many people would prefer death to a lifetime in prison, especially those who feel guilt and remorse.
Original post by BIGJohnson777
Then, no one would plead such. Proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is sufficient.


John Amery plead guilty of treason in time of war in 1945, knowing that the only possible sentence was death.
Original post by Observatory
John Amery plead guilty of treason in time of war in 1945, knowing that the only possible sentence was death.


That was a Sidney Carton ending though.

Leo sacrificed a peerage and John sacrificed his life to protect Julian's political prospects.
Original post by Rakas21
.



Forced labour camps are going too far however i have wondered if we could not create prisons on some of the islands off the west coast of Scotland to remove the threat to the bulk of the nation.


This was the recommendation of the Mountbatten Committee considering the imprisonment of very high security prisoners.

It wasn't adopted and the reasons why showed the way the world had changed without people like Mountbatten noticing. There were two problems with the policy. How do you attract staff with their families to work in very remote locations? How do you reinforce in a crisis?

When Princeton Prison was set up on Dartmoor, prison officer with its pay, stability and pension was one of the most attractive jobs a member of the working classes could aspire to. By the late 1960s working in a car factory in Cowley would have looked a much better bet than getting could and wet on Rhum Eigg or Muck. By the late 1960s there was no regular army battalion in every county town
Original post by Observatory
We should replace prisons by a combination of corporal and capital punishment, which would be both cheaper for the taxpayer and more effective at deterring crime.


Academic opinion is settled that capital punishment would be more expensive and that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent, try again.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
Academic opinion is settled that capital punishment would be more expensive and that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent, try again.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Capital punishment is more expensive in the USA because of extreme judicial opposition to actually carrying out any death sentence. That isn't the only way the death penalty has to, or has historically, worked.

I would probably agree that capital punishment isn't a much bigger deterrent than long prison sentences but I would disagree that corporal punishment isn't a bigger deterrent than short prison sentences for most criminals.
Original post by BIGJohnson777
How come abuse be worse than a burglary?


By abuse I mean physical, intellectual, emotional and social abuse. Burglary is bad, but not as bad as rapists/murders etc in my opinion.
Original post by Politricks
Except there is the risk that an innocent person will be executed, so no.


That's true, there's always that risk.
Original post by Trinculo
You think someone involved in domestic violence should be subject to the death penalty?

And you can see the obvious flaw with capital punishment for rape? You'd essentially be inventing a state-funded assassination service.



Depends, how bad domestic violence has gotten.
Reply 35
Avatar for saran23
saran23
6
Just wanted to recommend this video from the BBC that I recently watched:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p03ymv61/ad/the-insider-1-reggie-yates-in-a-texan-jail
Original post by Ishax
By abuse I mean physical, intellectual, emotional and social abuse. Burglary is bad, but not as bad as rapists/murders etc in my opinion.


Burglary:
D enters a building/part of a building as a trespasser with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, steal or cause unlawful damage therein. Also, neither physical nor emotional abuse (including rape) seem to be serious enough for the person convicted to be sentenced to death.
Imo even for murder a judge should have the ability to sentence one to death, but it shouldn't be mandatory unless it is a murder of a political figure, law enforcement officer etc.
Original post by BIGJohnson777
Burglary:
D enters a building/part of a building as a trespasser with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, steal or cause unlawful damage therein. Also, neither physical nor emotional abuse (including rape) seem to be serious enough for the person convicted to be sentenced to death.
Imo even for murder a judge should have the ability to sentence one to death, but it shouldn't be mandatory unless it is a murder of a political figure, law enforcement officer etc.


I think we'd be much better of with the death penalty, provided the correct checks were made before carrying it out.
Original post by Ishax
I think we'd be much better of with the death penalty, provided the correct checks were made before carrying it out.


The only situation where it should be reasonable to put someone down is where that person has committed numerous violent offences and almost certainly will continue. I literally just read a news story where a guy who had over 100 violent crimes on his record- beaten someone to death for a fiver. This is the type of people who should be put on a distant island and made fight other scumbags for food.
Original post by BIGJohnson777
The only situation where it should be reasonable to put someone down is where that person has committed numerous violent offences and almost certainly will continue. I literally just read a news story where a guy who had over 100 violent crimes on his record- beaten someone to death for a fiver. This is the type of people who should be put on a distant island and made fight other scumbags for food.


I don't believe in giving people like that second chances, considering the level of the crime they have commited. For minor crimes fair enough, it's not as bad.

For murders, rapists, paedophiles and acid attack people deserve ultimate death.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you