StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If every prisoner in every maximum-security prison was executed by gunshot tomorrow (no hearing, no clemency, no exceptions), would society be better off, or worse off?

Not that I'm seriously proposing such a thing, but seriously, would society be better off? And if so, does that mean the idea has merit, or does that mean that the "would society be better off" question is of little value in evaluating the morality of a decision?

Well, the Bleading Hearts would bitch like no tomorrow, but I don't have a problem with it.

And it might be good for taxes.

My head hurts ....

the only contribution I can make so far is that it would indeed free up lot's of money for other needs ... but for how long?

I don't think there's any evidence that's been presented that shows that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

Personally a question like that seems to bring up morals. Not to mention one's freedom as well as the government becoming oppressive. In one light, prolly 90% of those inmates are there for very fucked up reasons. While some would vote to off em and say society would be better off, I would be asking to pull the trigger. In my view, criminals are those that had the same freedoms we all had. However, they also had the same choice. Either obey the laws and respect others, or violate the rules and the freedoms of others. Obviously they chose the dark path. That can cover just standard criminals. Start going up levels, and you'll find bastards that do nothing but sit around and waste our damn tax dollars. Do I sound cruel or unjust? Good, because I am. I will also have you know, that I actually enjoy seeing a group of people in orange jump suits chained together picking up shit off the side of the road when I go to work. One good damn thing about Alabama folks, the 'Alabama Chain Gang' is very much alive and in effect. Now if they would bring back public hangings on the courthouse square, and allow the dead body to swing from the oak tree for a few days, we'd really be better off. I wonder if Shep agrees.

The flip side though, is if they did blast those mother fuckers, then it would bring into question the acts of the government. You would have to wonder if they would just fuck you over in a setup and when you got the slammer, off'd ya.

Would society be better off? First, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. Second, if those fucktards were capped on the front lawn in broad daylight, how many people would commite a crime the next day?

Society would be better off if we killed all the child molesters but an action such as killing every prisoner might set wheels into motion we cant control. So Im not sure if we would be better off in the long run.

Vympel wrote:My head hurts ....

the only contribution I can make so far is that it would indeed free up lot's of money for other needs ... but for how long?

10-25 years for the average prisoner, I believe.

I don't think there's any evidence that's been presented that shows that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

The question was whether society would be better off, not whether it would be an effective deterrent.

Darth Wong wrote: 10-25 years for the average prisoner, I believe.

Oh so you mean kill maximum security prisoners in there right now and then capital punsihment for the one's that would be going into maximum security under the old system?

The question was whether society would be better off, not whether it would be an effective deterrent.

Well I think less crime would be good for society, wouldn't it? People who advocate mass capital punishment always seem to point to deterrent effect. Ack never mind

Good is probably that it'll free up tax. Bad would be that we might kill off some people who were convicted of crimes they really didn't commit.


And there's the whole moral issue with it.

The moral issue is the interesting one. These people are generally worthless. They will contribute nothing to society, and as many have pointed out, they merely learn to be better criminals while they're in there. If any of them ever does something notable for the rest of his life, it will probably involve hurting somebody.

And one thing you can definitely say about the death penalty is that regardless of whether you think it is a deterrent, it will certainly keep the criminal from re-offending

So, one must weigh the Lockean morality (the rights of the criminal) against the "needs of the many" morality (is society better off, ie- safer, healthier, removal of its most destructive element).

And would it matter if this was turned into a policy, ie- death penalty for all criminals who currently get max-security long-term imprisonment? Or if it was just a one-shot purge?

And would it matter if this was turned into a policy, ie- death penalty for all criminals who currently get max- security long-term imprisonment? Or if it was just a one-shot purge?

I think it would matter if it was a on going policy vs. a one time purge. I think an on going policy would soon degenerate into lots of innocents being killed. While a one time purge would certainly do a lot to lower the crime rate among parolee's cause there would not be as many.

Society would undoubtably be better of if for no other reason than it doesn't have to maintain an enormous prison population. Most of the guys doing time in maximum security prisons are hard core long term prisoners. Most would go right back to crime as soon as they left; they won't in this scenario so it's absolutely reasonable to believe society would be better off.

Darth Wong wrote:If every prisoner in every maximum-security prison was executed by gunshot tomorrow (no hearing, no clemency, no exceptions), would society be better off, or worse off?

Not that I'm seriously proposing such a thing, but seriously, would society be better off? And if so, does that mean the idea has merit, or does that mean that the "would society be better off" question is of little value in evaluating the morality of a decision?

Depends on the seriousness and nature of the crime in question. Furthermore, with the advent of DNA evidence, some convictions might be brought into question. Assuredly, many murderers who are currently soaking up valuable tax dollars while learning new criminal skills in prison would benefit society were such a program as you suggest adopted post haste.

who shoots them? The person made to kill so many people would certainly not recover from it, and his immediate society would not be better off.

Not a good idea. If criminals think they're going to be killed if they get caught then they're going to go down shooting and that is going to be messy.

It's a difficult question to answer. If you quietly give the order and no warning is given, all the prisonners are shot in their cells without ceremony, then no one has any time to react or debate or argue for months over it.

The problem is in the origin of the orders. Who gave the order? Why wasn't it made public knowledge? Etc. If the president ordered all max-security prisonners killed without consulting the public, he'd get removed from office.

If this was a move that had been debated on by the public and everyone, whether they liked it or not, knew it was coming and that it had been deliberated, the public reaction would be - not much of anything.

It takes remarkably extreme actions to shake a society. But all society needs to cope with it is to know about it beforehand.

A large percentage of people in jail are there for use, possession, and distribution of drugs; as well as for stupid and idiotic statutory rape laws (the ones that say no matter how voluntary, horny, and begging on his knees with a collar and leash on someone thats 16 is, he still cant get fucked by a 20 year old). Then theres the hundreds and thousands of people in jail for no real reason, or people who were convicted incorrectly.

But Max-Sec prisons tend to have a small population often in jail for violent crimes. Personally I think all the murderers and rapists should be shot, but thats because I'm an eye-for-an-eye person. The rest, the ones who aren't dangerous enough to warrant (in my opinion) instant death, they can be tortured or sent to Med-Sex prisons, depending on their crimes. And we can fund all of this (remember, bullets cost money) by televising the executions and torture. Rome was a pretty stable society because of this, and gods know the US is far worse then Rome was.

kojikun wrote:Personally I think all the murderers and rapists should be shot, but thats because I'm an eye-for-an-eye person.

Do I realy need to point out again the obvious error in giving rape and murder the same sentence?

Do I realy need to point out again the obvious error in giving rape and murder the same sentence?

That's true, murder can sometimes have a justifiable reason behind it.

consequences wrote:

Do I realy need to point out again the obvious error in giving rape and murder the same sentence?

That's true, murder can sometimes have a justifiable reason behind it.

I meant, what's to stop a rapist murdering his victims?

Pretty much nothing except scruples.

If you take out who did and why and put it in a black and white arena...I'd say yes, Kill them off, and yes society would probably be better off, but only marginally so.

It would reduce some of the truly worthless...but as to any real changes in society...our problems run far deeper than some nutcases, who murder and do things for kicks.

So we would eliminate which demographics from our society?

Long term, what would we be without the sub-wage, underclass?

--edit--
I mean, the High end dealers get sent to club fed, same with the insider traders, The hard core criminals might just kill people to avoid getting caught, what difference does it make.

Also where would we get folks that are willing to work night shift in a convientce store?

Just to put another spin on the argument, but capital punishment is in itself a violation of human rights.

Under the UN Charter of Human Rights, capital punishment is in direct violation of it.

The US is one of the top violators of human rights through capital punishment, and if you decided to kill all prisoners in max security prisons then you'd get mass outcry from the human rights organizations, etc... as well as from the UN itself.

Darth Wong wrote:The moral issue is the interesting one. These people are generally worthless. They will contribute nothing to society, and as many have pointed out, they merely learn to be better criminals while they're in there. If any of them ever does something notable for the rest of his life, it will probably involve hurting somebody.

And one thing you can definitely say about the death penalty is that regardless of whether you think it is a deterrent, it will certainly keep the criminal from re-offending

So, one must weigh the Lockean morality (the rights of the criminal) against the "needs of the many" morality (is society better off, ie- safer, healthier, removal of its most destructive element).

And would it matter if this was turned into a policy, ie- death penalty for all criminals who currently get max-security long-term imprisonment? Or if it was just a one-shot purge?

I feel there should be a bill of responsibilities too. That way, if you violate your responsibilities, you lose some of your rights. For example, a person commits a murder, and loses his right to privacy, making the investigation much easier.

The long term cause for such criminals in the first place would remain unsolved. We would save money and prison space in the short term, but unless they are applied to solve the root problem, then we'll go back to where we started.

Ghost Rider wrote:Pretty much nothing except scruples.

The scruples of a rapist? Do you want all rape victims to die?