Crime & Punishment

Rather than shitting up the PS3 thread, let's take the discussion on how much punishment is enough or too much and who should be given a chance for redemption when here.

My take is that, as a general rule, punishments are not severe enough and that redemption is impossible for certain groups, e.g. sociopaths, and that giving the opportunity to everyone is foolish and even dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FirstBlood

Determining who is actually a sociopath to the point where we would put them to death would cost crazy amounts of money anyways.

---

I agree with this, but we could do better than we do today. People with repeated offenses of torturing animals, for example, should be removed from society, because it's only a matter of time before they escalate to humans.

Everyone should be able to prove they're worth redemption. You can't play judge, jury, and executioner for everyone else it's their government, too. Hardened career criminals, fuck 'em. Guy who may have hit someone drunk driving, he deserves a second chance even if the person died.

I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

Everyone should be able to prove they're worth redemption. You can't play judge, jury, and executioner for everyone else it's their government, too. Hardened career criminals, fuck 'em. Guy who may have hit someone drunk driving, he deserves a second chance even if the person died.

---

Everyone should be responsible for their actions. The asshole who drinks and drives knows better and does it anyway. If he kills someone, throw the book at him. The people we should be focused on helping are those that don't need a second chance. Why all the willingness to throw money at those who already blew it once? That's a kin to insurance companies looking for clients who smoke, because they deserve a second chance to be dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

---

did you hang your head to cry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Everyone should be responsible for their actions. The asshole who drinks and drives knows better and does it anyway. If he kills someone, throw the book at him. The people we should be focused on helping are those that don't need a second chance. Why all the willingness to throw money at those who already blew it once? That's a kin to insurance companies looking for clients who smoke, because they deserve a second chance to be dumb.

---

The person can still contribute something to the greater good. It also prevents worse crimes. If I knew I did something like shop lifted a candy bar but knew I was going to get years of jail because of it I'd kill every motherfucker that tried to stop me. Why shouldn't I?

We don't have unlimited money to throw at this, so we have to prioritize the spending of that money based on the most likely to contribute. The most likely to contribute are those who don't fuck up to begin with. I'd much rather see the money go to re-educate some honest man whose skills have become outdated than some criminal. In the real world the answer can't always be "both."

I can fix your scenario though. It's called teaching cops to shoot to kill instead of wound to capture. It doesn't cost nearly as much to go through some IA paperwork.

I quit.

Deterrence does work!

Quote:

---

Crime & Punishment

---

TLDR