Capital Punishment

[Hanyou]

[ziron]

By killing 70% of the prison system that is connect to gangs, you effectively solve the money, space, and perpetuating gang problem.

Again I said this method is basically akin to becoming genocidal against criminals who have joined a gang or are repeat offenders.

However, I'd change the laws in many other ways to help combat this. Drinking age lowered to 18 for one (Teens already drink well below 21 and 18). I'd put classes in highschool that are mandatory and they are about alcohol education. A large majority of the more gentle drugs would be made legal. Maurjuana, Some of the Hallucigens would be allowed. I'd wouldn't legalize cocaine and few other drugs because they support foreign crime syndicates, however, I'd take the money saved in prisons and the money made in the taxation of pot and hullicangen sales (it wouldn't be very extensive, I'm not an asshole) to upgrade the police force. Kids caught doing crime will be allowed an option of therapy (not brainwashing, but normal therapy as many people who go therapy feel 20% better than they did if they didn't when dealing with emotional issues). As crime rates reduce, I'd start pouring money into schools and colleges.

And to explain my thoughts further:
Gang Crime/Racketering -> Death Penalty
Sexual Assualt/Rape/Child Molestation (I respect romeo and juliet laws however) -> Death Penalty
Intentional Violent Crime -> Death Penalty or Military Service (For life, If you take someone's freedom, I'm going to make you lose your's.)
Unintentional Violent Crime -> Rehabilitation (You are imprisoned or jail, however you are allowed many freedoms, and you and the people you have harmed are made to participate in therapy in which you attempt to get over the violence you have caused)

And, A Clockwork Orange is specifically written to make you not appeal with the main character. In fact, the book almost shows everybody as being on some level in society.

[Hanyou]

[ziron]

[scy]

And yet society is what itself has bred the creation of gangs and other groups of that nature. It's not like this is a perfect world and they're rebelling because they want to; systemic racism or other forces have otherwise led them to that. Not that I'm defending gangs, mind you, but it's not like there isn't blame to be placed outside of themselves for that route.

[spoiler]Who knew my Sociology minor would come in handy.[/spoiler]

Edit: I see no "problem" in the Death Penalty for extremely heinous (i.e., mass murder) crimes given a beyond 100% belief that they are truly guilty.

The issue then, however, is the ability to satisfy that requirement.

Quite frankly, life in prison for major crimes is more-or-less the better solution than offing criminals. What we define as major crimes worthy of high prison sentences, however, makes this solution a bit problematic.

[epicurius7]

[Onions]

[Verloren]

[ShiningDrake]

[Sampson]

Well, I'm sure everyone has some sort of justification for their crimes, it's just that some are more "acceptable" than others. For example, let's say Bob killed Clay after torturing him extensively. Regardless of whether Clay was cheating on Bob's wife or let his dog poop in the former's yard, Bob still is guilty.

Also, concerning the doubt of guilt, isn't that what trials and verdicts are for? To objectively (as objectively as possible, at least) declare someone innocent or guilty of a crime. This is where subjectivity and objectivity get combined, at least for me. A subjective environment is created for the trial (the jury/judge is left to form their own opinions), and an opinion--a ruling--is given that, while technically subjective, rises to the level of objectivity. Keep in mind that I'm basing this information on the United States justice system, since I know other countries have different systems.

Also, the interesting thing about the difference between an innocent and guilty verdict is that the latter means there was no reasonable doubt, and the former does. Reasonable doubt, as you're probably aware, if present, means a verdict of not guilty. Continuing on with the "subjective to objective" system I previously mentioned, this means it is certain that any criminal found guilty committed a crime. At least in the objective sense of the "will of the people." There are always incorrect verdicts, of course, but those are due to humanity's errors in perception.

...In other words, it is is objective within the confines of the justice system.

[SAL]

I just want to throw in something here.

We think of the Death Penalty as being an appropriate response to the most vicious crimes, and from a practical standpoint it may seem logical (if a person is that dangerous, we can get rid of that danger forever by simply killing them). The problem is, death isn't the worst thing you can do to a person, and may not always be a suitable deterrent for preventing certain greivous crimes, such as mass murder. Most serial killers or mass murderers seem content with killing themselves rather than getting caught anyway, so the possibility of a death sentence may not really deter them from their actions too much.

If you really want to deter the most vicious criminal acts, then a more suitable sentence might be solitary confinement. It serves to confine the perpetrator, as well as being possibly the most brutal form of torture, psychologically speaking at least. I suspect that most people would consider death a far "lighter" sentence than one of solitary confinement, if they know of its full effects on a person.

In the down side, you haven't erased the danger of the perpetratior altogether, and I guess there's always the possibility they could escape and do more harm. But on the up side, I think it's a far more intimidating deterrent for the worst crimes than the death penalty is, and may lower the occurrence of the worst crimes as a result of it looming as a possible punishment.

(Note that I would personally only condone this for the absolute worst case scenarios, in which the perpetrator's guilt and intent is guaranteed, and the crime is of an extremely heinous nature)

[Reynard-Miri]

I'm support the death penalty as a suitable penalty for murder, but it's not worth doing if it's more resource-consuming than life in prison.

[PLA]

I like when public policy is distinguishable from a tantrum.

[noodles]

if one of my friends was killed or something i would want their murderer publicly beheaded

but when you are talking about what a -country- should have as its policies, you have to divorce yourself from the individual and think about the standards you are setting for a huge amount of people

if you want to make a point that killing is bad, why would you kill someone. lol

you're advocating the barbarism you're trying to deter.

though i don't think the existence of the death penalty is exactly a pressing issue either.

i take more issue with the fact that death penalty usually means >20 years of government-funded living and medical expenses and stuff

but i'm kinda glad that's there when you consider the non-zero amount of people who get proven innocent long after being on death row.

[Reynard-Miri]