Reduce foreign aid from 14 billion to 13 billion. There's a billion. How much does it cost employing police to chase after reoffenders who are reoffending as you let them out? How many won't reoffend in the first place as there's more of a deterrent?
It does follow. You need to demonstrate our present system is the best. If it's purely down to money, put it to a vote. I'd be happy to see a system where life means life and prison sentences are longer. If we have to pay more then fine. I'd rather pay taxes for that than pay people to sit at home.
You also can't simply say another counties system doesnt work. Different countries are different. You can see that with gun ownership. America has a problem with it, some don't. Then there's what people want. Democracy is a bitch but it's what we have. If people want long prison sentences, death sentences, whatever, then I don't agree with picking and choosing which bits people can have.
Which equally applies to our present system.
Bad analogy which seems to have nothing to do with anything at all.
Again if you are going to say long prison sentences, death penalties, whatever, don't work, then you need to demonstrate that short sentences lead to a drop in offending. Hopefully in the same country and also demonstrating that no other influences were involved.
There is no "vengeance" involved. If there was then the victim would be allowed to set the sentence, carry out the sentence, etc. That hasn't happened since when?
Sentencing has to involve a lot of complicated factors including rehabilitation, but also has to involve an element of punishment. We went through this before with the outcry over young offenders stealing cars and going hill walking and getting driving lessons as punishment. The public won't wear it and ultimately it's the public who pay the taxes, vote in elections and want the system we have.
Also note, some people are constant offenders. They just are. At least if they are in prison for a long time, at least the rest of us get a rest from them.
No - I don't need to demonstrate short sentences work, as firstly I believe there should be longer sentences and full life tariffs for certain crimes (see my first post on the thread).
I am agreeing that short sentences don't work, what I am disagreeing with is that the death penalty is no less a bad idea regardless of short sentences working or not.
I want a system that instead of setting something along the lines of murder = 15yrs, it is based on how much of a threat and danger to the public the offender is/likely to be now and at various future times.
If someone is a violent and aggressive individual that murders or seriously injures another human being uncessessarily (ie not in self defence) then they should be given a sentence that reflects protecting the public from further violent acts by that individual.
If that means keeping that individual locked away from society indefinately, then so be it - as long as there are robust and regular assessments and evaluations to identify if the threat and risks remain the same.
As Krish states clearly and others have pointed at - our system is traditionally retribution/vengeance based.
Punishment - the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence.
Retribution - punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.
Vengeance - punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.
Revenge.
For here maybe. Maybe. See above. Every country is different. If it comes to it, some states in the US have got rid of the death penalty, some keep it. Again different needs, some of the US states are very different. If you are in a place with a large amount of gun culture and gang warfare it may be the case that a death penalty will be the only thing even remotely understood and a deterrent. If you are in a US State like Delaware, probably far less of an issue.
I wouldn't say the death penalty doesn't work as I'm not living in a place with such gang warfare. If I was, I'd be wanting it. So would a lot of others.
Agreed, if we don't have a death penalty then life should mean life.
If we are going for "retributive justice" then:
Retributive justice - Wikipedia
Retributive justice is a theory of justice that holds that the best response to a crime is a punishment proportional to the offense, inflicted because the offender deserves the punishment. Prevention of future crimes (deterrence) or rehabilitation of the offender are not considered in determining such punishments. The theory holds that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that he or she suffer in return.
Retribution is different from revenge because retributive justice is only directed at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others and employs procedural standards.
So proportionate revenge enacted independently then? Don't see a problem with it as a system, and whether it's revenge or not is just semantics imo.
I disagree with capital punishment on principle.
However, if we are to have it, hanging is a good way to do it, so long as its done properly. Its best done by Timothy Spall, who did it so well in the film, Pierrepont. Yes, send for him.
But there are many more spectacular ways to do it that I would prefer to see. For example, squishing between two great blocks of granite, running on rails. That's my favourite. Or perhaps pulling apart by four giant turtles ambling off in opposite directions. Or being pinged to death by endless rubber bands. I can't decide.
The idea of whole life sentences would certainly make things easier and more sensible in the case of old people being convicted. To simply say, they get out when they die does seem sensible because we don't know when they are actually going to die. Contrast that to a situation in the news today, about Bill Crosby, who it is said could receive up to ten years per each of the three offences he was found guilty of, or 30 years. Given his age now, it seems more likely that he might long be a skeleton prior to his actual release. A 'whole life sentence' would eliminate this problem of guesswork. And I don't want my tax £s being wasted keeping a skeleton locked up to complete a fixed term.
Hangings good, we've used it for centuries and our gov had no problem with it being the chosen method for Saddam.
Rope and gravity are cheap.
Well, it would have to be done properly. I mean, not too short a drop or you could strangle them. Not too long, otherwise their head might come off, like your childhood experiments with plasticine and tomato sauce.
But mistakes usually are not - and I both prefer and suggest that it is far healthier for society to not state sponsor the taking of a life that is not a direct threat to anyone.
As a precaution, before pulling the lever you could ask the hangee if they are actually guilty, or not.