Philosophy Now Forum

As retribution is the only moral justification for the death penalty, but it is quick easy and final. Granted that life-imprisonment in a high-secure prison without prospect of release could be considered a living-hell, is this an arguement for not having the death penalty?
Broadening it out further, retribution for wilfully offending against society would seem the reason for imprisonment, yet prisoners are routinely given educative programs during and after prison, and released early from it for good behaviour, thus effectively avoiding what society through the courts has decided is a just measure of punishment. Has Utilitarianism gone mad here?
And is retribution itself morally justifiable as a response of a compassionate democracy normally tolerant of deviation?

The right to appeal against a wrong decision is vital to the preservation of justice in circumstances where miscarriages of justice are possible.
As many innocent persons have been found guilty, there can never be any justification for a death penalty.
There is really nothing more to say on this issue.

As for your point on educative programmes - this is simply a confirmation that the world we live in involves people in deterministic and causal factors that can be diverted - people can change.
The purpose of prisons is primarily the protection of the public, vengeance, deterrence and rehabilitation. This aims are often confused.

what about circumstances where there is no possible doubt as to the persons guilt, eg Arizona? surely either a punishment is considered right in itself. the objections raised are practical ones and not moral ones. as for prison being about protection, deterrence and rehabiliation as justifications, this is surely shown wrong as crime is routinely committed in prison, it doesnt deterr and rehabiliation rarely occurs.

I think we should be compassionate and offer a painless suicide pill to anyone sentenced to a significant prison term. That's what I'd want.

I don't care how nice the TV or food is, or what educational programs you have etc. Shove all that up your ass would be my opinion, if I was put in jail.

In the movie Braveheart, William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson) makes a passionate speech before a battle. He tells his troops...



That's a great sentiment, that resonates strongly here. There are things worse than death.

As part of being compassionate and understanding, we might reflect that many of those in prison are there because they were born this way, unable to accept anything but pure freedom.

That is, they simply are unable to accept the restrictions civilization requires of all of us. They have to be completely free, no matter what. There's something obscene about forcing such an incurably free person to learn how to live in a cage.

Such a person has to be removed from society, in a clear minded decisive way. Liberal hand wringers, find no support for your confusion here.

But criminals don't have to be locked up.

We might give the choice to them.

A life long cage.

Or the final freedom.

how can one be free if dead?

Sadly, it's this question which form the walls of the prison for those serving long terms.

This question, and fear of pain of course, as there is currently no pain free method of death offered to prisoners.

We could solve the fear of pain problem. I don't know that your question can be answered by somebody else, from outside a person.

the whole point of prison is to prevent choice of freedoms for someone who has offended against the freedoms they enjoyed in a necessarily collaborative society. it's distinctly odd to give prisoners choice of how they construct their prison- thats for non-offenders to decide.
the desire for death of prisoners as preferable to prison life is a subjective matter. Hell for all eternity was the just punishment of those who offended against god and man.
And if you chose death and then as an atheist found you were wrong and hell did exist, wouldnt you look foolish?
PS also a non-believer, that is why I think prison is better than death for the offensive.

The whole point of prison is to protect victims.

Keeping people locked up for decades actually places an additional burden on the victims, as it is the victims who have to provide free room and board to their attackers.

Keeping people locked up for decades also creates even more victims, as violence is an epidemic in prisons.

Human compassion requires that even serious criminals be offered a way out. But that way out can't be back in to society, so...

Mel fucking Gibson and Braveheart. What a sad fantasist you truly are turning out to be.

It may well resonate but the reality of committing suicide is not the piss easy task you appear to think it is.
LMFAO! "compassionate and understanding". Who'd have guessed the aphilosopher is a fucking nihilist determinist. "Pure freedom" is having choices numbnuts. Take a look at your prisons, you'll find the bulk of your 'purely free' are illiterate and probably born into abusive families.
You, Seer Travis Truman and this Jared Lee Loughner definitely appear to share the same coin.

My take is you can spout this bullshit when the society you live in gives no excuse of circumstances because they effectively don't exist. Then you might be able to think about killing or allowing them to suicide through despair.

More aphilosphical 'logic'? From what is it protecting the victims? The clue is in the word. I'd have thought such as you would say the whole point is to protect the public and punish the criminal.
You mean "...violence is endemic in prisons.".

Ever wondered why the US has about the harshest legal and punishment system in the Western World, yet still has the largest prison population? Don't tell me, its not harsh enough.

Solve prison overcrowding! Hang 'em All!!