If every prisoner was killed ...

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-01-07 04:15am

It's just an example of "end justifies the means" thinking.

I wasn't accusing you or anyone else of saying that.

I disagree, in answer to your question, and I just said why. I hoped the example would help explain my point, but I apologize if it was confusing.

If they're already in prison without possibility of parol, then they aren't going to hurt anybody... except possibly other prisoners and maybe guards or themselves (depending on how good the security is). But then society probably doesn't really care if that happens do they?

If nothing else, the practicality issue would be that yes, you could save some money by just killing criminals instead of trying to rehabilitate them or keep them in prison for the rest of their lives, but it really wouldn't accomplish anything in the long term, since you wouldn't deter future criminals (no evidence to show it would) and you'd just have to do it again after the prisons fill up again.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-01-07 04:17am

Though, and I don't mean to open an unrelated can of worms here, but many opponents of the death penalty (and proponents of legal system reform) like to claim that the majority of felons in prison are mentally ill, drug addicted, or from broken homes, or the homeless, poor, etc driven to crime due to their miserable existence.

Could a case be made for "putting them out of their misery"? I still don't think its a worthy solution.

Magashi · Post by **Magashi** » 2003-01-07 09:05am

I can see this working very well for society, if all of the cards are played just right. First we have this idea being presented by the President, to Congress. It is voted on, for sake of argument, its passed 90% vote. We have the Supreme Court agree that it would be a wonderful idea. Then the purge begins.

Unless they have their own funeral services set up, we have to burn them, no use taking up precious land-fill space, eh? Now, if this is a once and done thing, I have strong doubts as to whether or not it will have a major impact on hardened criminals. However, if it remains instated, sort of like a Zero Tollerance rule, I feel that society will be bettered.

Criminals will learn if the punishment is severe enough to make them think twice. And I would like to mention, along DW's prior mention of "These are not nice guys, folks" You can knock the system all that you want to, but there are certain things that one should keep in mind.

To date, forensic science has astounded me time and time again. They can completely reconstruct a scenario from very little apparent evidence at a crime-scene. How many people can you possibly suggest are in Max Sec Prison, and don't warrant it? Even a shadow of a doubt will exonerate a man. I can agree that sometimes the bad guy gets away, but how often is the good guy serving 25 to life???

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-07 11:04am

Magashi wrote:To date, forensic science has astounded me time and time again. They can completely reconstruct a scenario from very little apparent evidence at a crime-scene. How many people can you possibly suggest are in Max Sec Prison, and don't warrant it? Even a shadow of a doubt will exonerate a man. I can agree that sometimes the bad guy gets away, but how often is the good guy serving 25 to life???

If he's black, gay or poor, then often enough for me, personally, to back away and say that the system just isn't accurate enough to warrent capital punishment. That's me, though.

There was a case of a woman getting life for arson and murder on no evidence other than she was dating the deceased's husband and father (2 dead, not 2 affairs). It happens.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-01-07 11:09am

society would be better of money ways of course.
but think of the major uproar inside as well as outside of the usa. even more people are going to hate the usa. the relationship between the usa and it´s friends will crumble if such a tremendous crime would be commited by the government officials. and that, obviously would be bad for society.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-01-07 06:41pm

I would just like to point out that this kind of thing has been tried before (to various extents) in various countries throughout history.

Merely having mass executions (Soviety Union, Nazi Germany) or draconian punishments (Saudi Arabia, too many others to name... any Medieval kingdom) has not been shown to stop crimes or violence.

If it did, then those countries wouldn't have to keep meting out the punishments would they?

Again, all this would do, is deter the (now dead) criminals from committing more crimes. And like the death penalty as applied in the United States (supposedly one of the more "soft" applications, considering all the appeals/waiting on death row that occurs), innocents are still killed along with the guilty, and there's no bringing them back (for themselves or their families).

Sure, mass murder could be carried out legally (again, as its been done in the past), but that still doesn't make it right, moral, or something I'd advocate. ; p

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-07 06:50pm

Mr Bean wrote:Seriously the problem lies in the fact people can stay on Death Row so long

My simple solution is slaping time-limts on all sentances that CAN NOT be worked around, Even if your in the middle of a Bloody Trial-To bad

Seems harsh?
Today the avarage prisoner can stay alive between 7-34 Years in one case if they keep getting new Trials

Fine,

Lets cut the Shit, 5 Years, No more no Less, Fives Years from the Day you are convicted you die, there are not contuances, only pardons or excutions

You get three trials during that period, two you can opt for, one is automatic during your Fourth Year

That is the dumbest fucking idea I have ever heard. Do you have any idea how many innocent people have been let off death row who would have died by your system? The system is set up that way to PREVENT innocent people from dying because a SINGLE innocent life is worth more then 5 million guilty murderers. You have an extremely disturbing view on how the system should work. And did you know that when applying such a system to states like Virginia will have fucked up consquences? Virginia has a 21 day law on evidence. That means you have 21 days after the conviction to turn up new evidence. After those 21 days NO new evidence can EVER be brought to trial. The law was written in such a fashion it does NOT take into account DNA evidence being used on old cases. Infact the law was written so poorly that ILLEGALLY witheld evidence by corrupt police and proseccutors counts as new evidence and as such can never be used if found more then 21 days after a trial.

Your "system" would only serve to kill innocent people at the expense of a petty need for revenge.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-07 07:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:Who the hell said anything about killing the underprivileged, the poor, etc? We're talking strictly about prisoners in maximum-security pen. These are not nice guys, folks. A large percentage of them will go on to hurt someone else once they get out.

And a lot of people in the maximum-security prisons are poor, underprivileged and minorities who are there simply because they are poor, underprivileged and/or minorities. The piss-poor justice system is almost as responsible as the criminals for the fact that many are on a criminal merry-go-round.

Like I said before, I don't trust the justice system to mete out justice. Juries are composed largely of morons, and a person's guilt or innocence is decided in a fashion akin to the Academy Awards: who gives the best presentation.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-01-07 07:13pm

A large percentage of them will go on to hurt someone else once they get out.

That's also key, now that I think about it.. a "large percentage."

We're saying that MANY (but not all) of them POTENTIALLY will cause harm once they get out. It's being suggested we should punish people for crimes they have not yet committed (Minority Report) and killing the "reformed" (ie: criminals who don't hurt anyone once they get out, despite their past actions) along with the "still guilty" (ie: people who will commit more violent actions against people once they get out).

We're not even talking about death row inmates are we? Just people in "maximum security" (whether they deserve to be there or not).

The presence of corrupt/inept judges, juries, politicians and the fact that mistakes have occured and innocent people can't be brought back from the dead once executed means we have to apply the death penalty with the utmost caution, if we apply it at all. Unless we just want to dispense with concepts of justice and due process entirely.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-01-07 07:15pm

Sorry, forgot to add this last line...

IF they get out. If they're in for life, they can't "get out" to hurt anybody as it is. They're no danger to society (unless they escape... but it's "maximum security" remember?).

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-01-07 11:29pm

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?

--Unless you subscribed to a black and white fallacy where your only options are to keep the disfuctional justic system we currently have and either kill all the max. sec. prisoners or not this is terrible idea. If the justice system were fixed we wouldn't have many of the problems we do now. You wouldn't get 25 years for rape and 5 for murder, 25 to life for several minor drug offenses and probation for the theft of millions of dollars, etc. The U.S. "justice" system is hopelessly irrational and needs a complete overhaul. The laws need to be rational, there needs to be serious rehabilitation of prisoners, trial by jury needs to be abolished, etc.

Sienthal · Post by **Sienthal** » 2003-01-07 11:51pm

Well...There is the one in a thousand...Like that guy who designed...I think the first incarnation of the carbine, in prison. But, aside from that possibility, I would see little problem in it, aside from the hauntings of guilt for all my life,

. However, it would be a distinct possibility that innocents would be torched as well. Also, if prisoners were to be killed upon conviction, it would make criminal trials that much more critical. This could be good or bad, as it may or may not make these fuggin crazy cases to lessen.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-08 12:04am

Nova Andromeda wrote:
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?
--Unless you subscribed to a black and white fallacy where your only options are to keep the disfuctional justic system we currently have and either kill all the max. sec. prisoners or not this is terrible idea. If the justice system were fixed we wouldn't have many of the problems we do now. You wouldn't get 25 years for rape and 5 for murder, 25 to life for several minor drug offenses and probation for the theft of millions of dollars, etc. The U.S. "justice" system is hopelessly irrational and needs a complete overhaul. The laws need to be rational, there needs to be serious rehabilitation of prisoners, trial by jury needs to be abolished, etc.

Don't forget the 25 years for possession of some marijuana, as compared to getting off scott-free for ruining the retirement plans of thousands of your employees by stealing all their money and building a $30 million home.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-01-08 02:59am

Again, as pointed out, we're assuming that everyone in "maximum security" is guilty, beyond all rehabilitation, and deserving of death... in addition to the assumption that the system is fair and just.

Since I think many of us will agree its not, and the others are not givens, it wouldn't work.

And to answer part of your original statement Mr. Wong, no, questions of whether or not "society is better off" shouldn't be the deciding factor (or at least not the only factor) in the decision making. It's certainly not the deciding factor in terms of morality.

Example: what if the majority of a society WOULD INDEED be better off without racial or ethnic minorities? Through the ages, groups of people have been labelled a drain on the economy, prone to crime/drug abuse, etc. Again, it might seem obviously of a benefit to society to "eliminate" these people, but that doesn't make it a moral thing to do.

Since the problems that lead to these people being incarcerated into maximum security in the first place (poverty, the drug trade, corruption, human nature) will not likely be going away anytime soon, a single purge really would be useless in the long-term, and therefore continual purges would be needed. But what that amounts to is a death-camp society, not one many people would want to be a part of. ; p

And the more and larger numbers of people you kill, the larger the numbers of innocents you'll have dead as well, to add to the fire.

Granted, this all goes out into the trash if you believe in the theory of Cultural Ethical Relativism (ie: whatever a society decides is moral.. by the majority.. is indeed what's moral, and no outsiders can intervene and say "that's wrong, what you're doing").

mantakai · Post by **mantakai** » 2003-01-08 06:18am

Thats a hard question to answer cause it doesnt take into account many factors like what the person is in for, maybe the person is not guilty but was found guilty, can the person be rehabilitated or will they continue to be the way they are, and also the whole cliche that two wrongs dont make a right, just because they did something bad doesnt mean you have the right to do something equally as bad to them. Then again, to some, death is seen as a release as prison life isnt much of a life at all, so in a way being in prison is a worse punishment than actually killing them. very conflicting moral question. if you take kurgan's view that they are all guilty and cant be rehabilitated then you still have the question of quick death vs long crappy life, do you want to torture these people cause that can be as nasty a thing as killing someone.
many people, me for one, wouldnt really notice much of a difference if you did just kill people as i dont pay much attention to jails or anything, so on a personal opinion, i would say its a void question as it makes no difference to me.

by the way, this is posted on the original question disregarding all the other opinions and factors mentioned in the other 3 pages as i havent read them yet, i just thought i would give my opinion before being influenced

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-01-08 08:37am

Note, I know you didn't have time to read all of the previous opinions yet (which is fine and you admitted this), but I didn't actually say that was my view, only what it might mean IF we took that view for granted. ; )

mantakai · Post by **mantakai** » 2003-01-08 06:04pm

in the reply page, ur message was the first one i saw as it was the last posted so i just quickly read it and thats what i saw so i used it in my reply sorry for not clarrifying that

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2003-01-08 08:39pm

Mr Bean wrote:Seriously the problem lies in the fact people can stay on Death Row so long

My simple solution is slaping time-limts on all sentances that CAN NOT be worked around, Even if your in the middle of a Bloody Trial-To bad

Seems harsh?
Today the avarage prisoner can stay alive between 7-34 Years in one case if they keep getting new Trials

Yes and what has this long time frame turned up, I'll tell you since 1973 ninety-five defendents have been found to be completly innocent of the crimes they where sentenced for (Compared to 668 people executed during a similar time. to give a sense of scale) in one case study of 4,578 cases during a 23 year period that courts found serious, reversible errors in nearly 7 out of 10 capital sentence cases that where reviewed during the period. (not limited to states with death sentences in states with death sentences 85% of them had an error rate over 60% and 3 out of every 5 of them have error rates over 70%) on average it can take nine years from date of sentence to execution to catch these errors, Well overe Bean your five year limit. Added to this is the fact that the study that these figures comes from was for a period between 1973 to 1995 since 1996 the numbere of errors has RISEN.

Other facts out of roughly 3,700 death row inmates seventy where considered minors at the time of commitiung the crime... So what you ask they did it, Well A.) That makes America the only Industralised country to execute children... (An Aside even China dosn't do this). And of course it means that the States that in many cases you are stating that signing a Contract requires a greater maturity than killing someone. As some are too young to sign a Contract....

I could go on, but I think I made the point. Finnally all facts presented here are taken from the book Stupid White Men by Micheal Moore. Penguin Books edition, Pages 204 to 205)

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-01-08 11:14pm

And of course, as was stated in the original question, our hypothetical "final solution" is not limited to death row inmates but "every prisoner in every maximum-security prison."

But even if we did limit to it death row inmates... well, you've made a good point above (assuming Moore's facts are correct).

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2003-01-08 11:52pm

Killing everyone in Max Sec would be totally fucked up, for a number of reasons already stated.

The fact that the government has the power to decide who deserves to live and die isn't terribly appealing. The fact that you're killing people for crimes that they may commit in the future as much as the ones they've commited in the past is dumb. In all likelyhood the process will claim thousands of innocent victims. Ideologically I think it's repugnant; society wouldn't be better off due to philosophical damage.

Finally how much money would really be saved? You'd still have upkeep on all the empty prisons waiting for new prisoners, and you'd probably also have at least fifty thousand civil suits against the government. The ACLU would be keepin' busy for quite some time.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If every prisoner was killed ...

It has to be set up right.

Re: It has to be set up right.