Return Capital Punishment - ReCaP

I don't think that those that break the law, even those who commit the most serious of crimes, should lose the right to be treated as human beings.Half of all prisoners are assessed at having a reading level at or below that of an eleven year old; two thirds have numeric ability at or below that of an eleven year old; four fifths of prisoners have the writing ability at or below that of an eleven year old. These skills are required for 96% of all jobs.(1) Would it be fair to say that many people imprisoned for serious crimes - crimes that can undoubtably leave victims and their families terribly damaged - have nonetheless been failed repeatedly, not just by the criminal justice system, but by schools and perhaps family also, since practically the time of their birth?Maybe you're right, and we should start killing people to free up prison space - but couldn't it be argued equally that it is a failure of the justice system to rehabilitate those who break the law that is what's really costing the nation?(1) see the report "Reducing Re-offending by Ex-Prisoners", 2002. Its on google scholar but you have to read the HTML version.

I agree with this. I believe the world would be better if people were more empathetic and caring, even if only to their families.By the same token, I am hesitant to condemn those who are unwilling or unable to "make changes". Their behaviour can often be viewed as a result of a childhood punctuated by violence or neglect. To me it seems self-evident that those who are cruel or unpleasant, or even violent and murderous, act as they do because their destructive behaviours are learned.Although this shouldn't be used to excuse violent behaviour, I think it should at least help to account for it. I don't think the demonisation of the most damaged members of society helps any.I'm also not saying that everyone who is abused should be expected to abuse. Many people have survived abuse and not felt compelled to abuse, or have successfully smothered any desire to do so when they have felt it. I just think the idea of certain people "choosing" to be "evil" - and that they should as a result be considered monsterous when previously they would have been considered victims - is simplistic and unhelpful.I imagine that some people are so damaged, either by childhood experiences or subsequent ones, that rehabilitation is next to impossible. I don't think that means that we shouldn't try though.

That's a good question. I suppose we both agree that it ends when the generational cascade of abuse is halted. The difference is that you find capital punishment to be a reasonable way of doing this and I do not.I think we both agree that the punishment of one who was abused and became an abuser is a punishment for ancient, forgotten wrongs and is unjust.But although I find the idea of apportioning a significant degree of blame to someone in this instance unfair, I don't think it unreasonable to incarcerate them to prevent them from doing further damage to others. I also think it of desperate importance to attempt to rehabilitate such prisoners. If rehabilitation is of limited efficacy, then serious money should be sunk into finding new and better ways. After all, the idea of getting a functioning member of society back at the end of incarceration has to be very attractive, even if the methods used aren't 100% effective.That's where I believe it should end, and not on a trestle table with Velcro straps.Now I know that figures are used as propaganda tools, and can be bent by the unscrupulous or idealistic. But like Super Nintendo Chalmers, I have read on anti-capital punishments websites that capital punishment, at least in its current form in the US, is costing significantly more than life imprisonment would. I personally would like to see that money sunk into improved rehabilitation, training and education for prisoners. If, like me, you reject the blame and revenge components of criminal justice as unhelpful then I think this is the only humane standpoint, though I am fully aware that it upsets some people. I agree that the desire to protect potential victims is a priority. With this in mind, I don't propose that people be let out of prison before their sentence, withstanding normal parole proceedings, is completed. And I don't propose that people, unless in certain cases when the offender is judged to pose a serious enough risk to the population, should be interred for life (though I think every case should be open to review). I think that most people, having served their sentence, should be allowed another chance. I don't think that they should be allowed this chance, however, without the most diligent attempts being made to ensure that they will not reoffend when they are freed. This means serious money being spent on them to train them, to counsel them and to educate them. In this way I think the conflict between the potential victims and their potential victimisers is made less pronounced than it can be currently. As I have stated, I believe that those who could hypothetically be endangered by unrehabilitatable convicts are well protected by the indefinite imprisonment of said convicts. I believe that as a result execution is rendered redundant as a means of protecting potential victims.