Standing the Test of Time

[Guest JoshIcy]

So I was watching NextWorld on the Discovery Science Channel, and it brought up the most intriguing thing. They claim that within the next 20-40yrs, our life expectancy will double if not triple.

 

So the debate here is: What will happen to Prison Sentences and Criminals, knowing that they may well live well into their 200's? Even living to 90 would be a problem in Prison. Costing everyone so much money, there is a lot of obvious repercussions facing this fact.

 

Also, since all you can't seem to pick a side (majority anyway). When you post, consider choosing a side:

• Propose a reason to keep them alive and how they can be put to use, to make up for the ever growing lifespan of humans.
  
• Propose a reason to cut down the prison population, and support it with adequate reasons to "cut them down".
  
• As a side debate, if you can discuss how this will affect overpopulation and the steps to make sure we have space etc, while maintaining a livable society.
  

 

Go.

[Parting Shot]

Knowing humanity, life sentences will probably be given less frequently and more people killed for crimes of that magnitude. Prisons will not be able to hold that amount of people for that long, it would suck up too much money. Even with the things they have some convicts doing (answering telephones for companies, etc.) it still wouldn't be viable to keep so many for upwards of 100 years.

 

I don't really have any ideas on what they could do to try and either reintegrate those people or somehow keep them all behind some kind of bars without becoming overcrowded and unlivable.

 

 

On a bigger picture note, prisons aren't the only things that would suffer from this. Overpopulation and overcrowding are already problems in some areas of the world, and increased life spans will only make this worth.

[Amaterasu]

I think that this will make over population a problem for sure. The world is already suffering of overpop. And the only way we can fix that is by giving out more death penalties.

[OMGAKITTY]

Overpopulation will lead to one of 3 things:

 

Mass poverty and starvation

Plague

War

[Amaterasu]

Overpopulation will lead to one of 4 things:

 

Death

War

Famine

Pestilence

 

Fixed.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Overpopulation will lead to one of 3 things:

 

Mass poverty and starvation

Plague

War

 

ITT: Common Sense apparently is a viable post in a debate.

No it isn't. What you posted was obvious, give us something to debate AGAINST.

 

You also did not choose a side, only a random lol post. Debate or gtfo.

[-Berserker-]

I suppose at the start the longer lifespan will be only for the rich and powerful (and maybe a random guinea pig). But later, every government will stablish control over reproduction. Right now I'm thinking in giving free food to the people with less (adding to the food something that would prevent them to breed, the poor are the ones with more childs, maybe because of the lack of education). Looking even more far in the future, maybe we will end evolving and our bodies will control reproduction (mammals with more lifespan breed slower, like elephants and whales).

[OMGAKITTY]

Overpopulation will lead to one of 3 things:

 

Mass poverty and starvation

Plague

War

 

ITT: Common Sense apparently is a viable post in a debate.

No it isn't. What you posted was obvious' date=' give us something to debate AGAINST.

 

You also did not choose a side, only a random lol post. Debate or gtfo.

[/quote']

 

Last time I tried that, you funking deleted my post. A guy can't win.

 

Fine. Kill them all. A killer's life is worth nothing anyway.

[The Dark One]

In order to solve the prison question, we need to re-evaluate the purpose of jail. Jail is far too expensive to be used as a form of punishment. The purpose of the institution is, or rather should be, to remove dangerous people from society. The number of people who would really fit this qualification continues to grow smaller and smaller, especially considering the new understandings of mental conditions and their possible treatments. Crimes such as drug abuse or dealership are purely civil in nature, and should not be sucking up prison space. I think you''l find that in a situation such as the one you described, most offenses (tax evasion, petty theft, etc.) will be compensated for with other penalties, such as social work. Crimes of passion will likewise be treated in a rather different light. Anger management classes could be necessary, but just because someone hurt his child in a fit of anger doesn't mean he's a bad person. Unfit to raise a child, perhaps, but not one warranting removal from society. etc. etc.

 

If prison sentences become adequately rare, costs will remain satisfactorily low even with the great increases in lifespan.

 

Also consider rehabilitation, age, etc. A 21 year old rapist isn't going to be much of a threat after having spent 100 years in jail. He's an old man at that point. Let him free. That's not to say he should be entirely unsupervised, but the system under which criminals are locked away at the public expense for the benefit of no one is fast-becoming obsolete.

 

Oh, and the death penalty is really only applicable in the theoretical situation that the risk of a prisoner breaking free was significant;y high, which means a very high profile target. If it's possible to avoid giving that sentence, I think the extra cash is worth it.

 

Oh, and prisoners could be more actively utilized. For example, contracts could be given under which a prisoner's sentence is shortened if he agrees to do hard-labor such as construction work, etc. Perhaps apprenticeship programs could be set up to both increase the usefulness of the prisoner as a member of society if and when he is released and to help the expert out, etc.

[Dark]

Overpopulation and overcrowding are already problems in some areas of the world, and increased life spans will only make this worth.

 

You got here first. Well played.

 

Yeah, pretty much this. So, should we start a mass killing of people who do not benefit for the greater good? Should we reimplement death penalties and make them more used?

[OMGAKITTY]

Overpopulation and overcrowding are already problems in some areas of the world' date=' and increased life spans will only make this worth. [/i']

 

You got here first. Well played.

 

Yeah, pretty much this. So, should we start a mass killing of people who do not benefit for the greater good? Should we reimplement death penalties and make them more used?

 

Careful Dark, if you don't pick a side liek, right nao, ur gunna get a warning.

 

TDO brings up some valid solutions. I personally think using convicts to fuel are cannonfodder armies is a viable solution.

[The Dark One]

Overpopulation and overcrowding are already problems in some areas of the world' date=' and increased life spans will only make this worth. [/i']

 

You got here first. Well played.

 

Yeah, pretty much this. So, should we start a mass killing of people who do not benefit for the greater good? Should we reimplement death penalties and make them more used?

 

Careful Dark, if you don't pick a side liek, right nao, ur gunna get a warning.

 

TDO brings up some valid solutions. I personally think using convicts to fuel are cannonfodder armies is a viable solution.

 

While there is a sort of cruel logic to having the undesirables of society out there doing the dirty jobs of the military, I'm really not comfortable with the concept of of taking somebody convicted of not following the laws of our country, giving him a gun, and telling him to defend those same laws. Even if the situation was set up so that no bad sheet could happen, it still seems wrong to me.

[Tabris]

1. Since I think of myself as a humane person incapable of killing life except at self-defense, I might as well say that the prisoners we do have be kept alive. Reasons? I posit none.

 

2. To cut down the prison population (and minimize problems stemming from overpopulation and cost overruns, among others), I propose that the laws be loosened up: for instance, abolish the drinking age limits, allow people to use as much drugs as they like as long as they wouldn't kill.

[Tempest Dahlia]

Death sentences are not the way to go for a multitude of reasons.

Simply put: Prisoners will be put to work, conditions will worsen. lt will be Night all over again... Except no one will save the prisoners.

 

The only other way is to reinforce the laws so that people don't end up imprisoned in the first place.

[The Dark One]

I'll also throw out there that given the present system used, a death sentence actually costs more than does a life sentence in prison. Why? THe whole system of automatic appeals and the precipitating court fines apparently have a lot to do with it, though I don't know much regarding the specifics.

[Blaze Pyro]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

[The Dark One]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

[Willieh]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

[The Dark One]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

Not really.

 

Somebody does an even greater crime to society than the other criminals, so we spend more money on him? Money that will not A. mitigate his crime. B. Make that crime occur less often. or C. Rehabilitate him, since he's now dead.

 

In the end, we lose out.

 

All for what. Some silly sense of justice?

[Willieh]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

Not really.

 

Somebody does an even greater crime to society than the other criminals' date=' so we spend more money on him? Money that will not A. mitigate his crime. B. Make that crime occur less often. or C. Rehabilitate him, since he's now dead.

 

In the end, we lose out.

 

All for what. Some silly sense of justice?

[/quote']

 

Money and moral justice can't be paired. If someone killed a member of your family that you cared very much about, you'd probably want that person to be dead too. It's a slap in the face to the family of the murdered person. Granted, we should find a more cost efficient and humane form of death penalty (nitrogen asphyxiation). Another problem (albeit an uncommon problem) people could face is the fact that organized crime can be committed from inside Prison.

[The Dark One]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

Not really.

 

Somebody does an even greater crime to society than the other criminals' date=' so we spend more money on him? Money that will not A. mitigate his crime. B. Make that crime occur less often. or C. Rehabilitate him, since he's now dead.

 

In the end, we lose out.

 

All for what. Some silly sense of justice?

[/quote']

 

Money and moral justice can't be paired. If someone killed a member of your family that you cared very much about, you'd probably want that person to be dead too. It's a slap in the face to the family of the murdered person. Granted, we should find a more cost efficient and humane form of death penalty (nitrogen asphyxiation). Another problem (albeit an uncommon problem) people could face is the fact that organized crime can be committed from inside Prison.

 

It's quite possible that I would. But, being a family member, I'm hardly in a position to give an unbiased judgement.

 

Now, imagine if you were the family member of the killer. You'd likely NOT want him dead. Of course, you're equally biased in this situation, but the point is validated. We're causing more death and suffering, and for no tangible purpose.

 

Vengeance is NOT morality. Vengeance is a petty, animalistic, desire to destroy that which opposes us. It is not necessary, nor is is good, for vengeance to be implemented in a codified system of laws.

[Willieh]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

Not really.

 

Somebody does an even greater crime to society than the other criminals' date=' so we spend more money on him? Money that will not A. mitigate his crime. B. Make that crime occur less often. or C. Rehabilitate him, since he's now dead.

 

In the end, we lose out.

 

All for what. Some silly sense of justice?

[/quote']

 

Money and moral justice can't be paired. If someone killed a member of your family that you cared very much about, you'd probably want that person to be dead too. It's a slap in the face to the family of the murdered person. Granted, we should find a more cost efficient and humane form of death penalty (nitrogen asphyxiation). Another problem (albeit an uncommon problem) people could face is the fact that organized crime can be committed from inside Prison.

 

It's quite possible that I would. But, being a family member, I'm hardly in a position to give an unbiased judgement.

 

Now, imagine if you were the family member of the killer. You'd likely NOT want him dead. Of course, you're equally biased in this situation, but the point is validated. We're causing more death and suffering, and for no tangible purpose.

 

Vengeance is NOT morality. Vengeance is a petty, animalistic, desire to destroy that which opposes us. It is not necessary, nor is is good, for vengeance to be implemented in a codified system of laws.

 

The fact of the matter is that my family member was/is a murderer, and is clearly in the wrong between the two. I, personally, don't usually support the death sentence. I mean some people deserve it (Jack the Ripper types)... but I pretty much agree with your last paragraph. All I'm saying is that until people can find out a sensible way to deal with serial killers, the Death Penalty is the easiest option to go with. And, honestly, Death is quite a bit more humane than imprisonment. At least as far as I can tell.

[The Dark One]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

Not really.

 

Somebody does an even greater crime to society than the other criminals' date=' so we spend more money on him? Money that will not A. mitigate his crime. B. Make that crime occur less often. or C. Rehabilitate him, since he's now dead.

 

In the end, we lose out.

 

All for what. Some silly sense of justice?

[/quote']

 

Money and moral justice can't be paired. If someone killed a member of your family that you cared very much about, you'd probably want that person to be dead too. It's a slap in the face to the family of the murdered person. Granted, we should find a more cost efficient and humane form of death penalty (nitrogen asphyxiation). Another problem (albeit an uncommon problem) people could face is the fact that organized crime can be committed from inside Prison.

 

It's quite possible that I would. But, being a family member, I'm hardly in a position to give an unbiased judgement.

 

Now, imagine if you were the family member of the killer. You'd likely NOT want him dead. Of course, you're equally biased in this situation, but the point is validated. We're causing more death and suffering, and for no tangible purpose.

 

Vengeance is NOT morality. Vengeance is a petty, animalistic, desire to destroy that which opposes us. It is not necessary, nor is is good, for vengeance to be implemented in a codified system of laws.

 

The fact of the matter is that my family member was/is a murderer, and is clearly in the wrong between the two. I, personally, don't usually support the death sentence. I mean some people deserve it (Jack the Ripper types)... but I pretty much agree with your last paragraph. All I'm saying is that until people can find out a sensible way to deal with serial killers, the Death Penalty is the easiest option to go with. And, honestly, Death is quite a bit more humane than imprisonment. At least as far as I can tell.

 

Why should Jack the Ripper be put to death? Imprisonment does the job just as well. If necessary, put him in solitary.

 

I think that itself is a sensible solution to deal with serial killers. They are still humans. Don't butcher them.

 

Certainly, in situations where keeping the prisoner alive is dangerous, I say put him to death without a doubt, but whenever we can avoid that penalty without endangering society,I think we should.

 

As for the humanity of the penalty, that is certainly disputable. There have been issues, of late, regarding the methods by which the penalty is applied, for one thing.

 

And for another, I don't think a single convict on death row would for a second say they preferred their status. We value our lives. So do criminals.

[Willieh]

[spoiler=QUOTEFEST]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

Not really.

 

Somebody does an even greater crime to society than the other criminals' date=' so we spend more money on him? Money that will not A. mitigate his crime. B. Make that crime occur less often. or C. Rehabilitate him, since he's now dead.

 

In the end, we lose out.

 

All for what. Some silly sense of justice?

[/quote']

 

Money and moral justice can't be paired. If someone killed a member of your family that you cared very much about, you'd probably want that person to be dead too. It's a slap in the face to the family of the murdered person. Granted, we should find a more cost efficient and humane form of death penalty (nitrogen asphyxiation). Another problem (albeit an uncommon problem) people could face is the fact that organized crime can be committed from inside Prison.

 

It's quite possible that I would. But, being a family member, I'm hardly in a position to give an unbiased judgement.

 

Now, imagine if you were the family member of the killer. You'd likely NOT want him dead. Of course, you're equally biased in this situation, but the point is validated. We're causing more death and suffering, and for no tangible purpose.

 

Vengeance is NOT morality. Vengeance is a petty, animalistic, desire to destroy that which opposes us. It is not necessary, nor is is good, for vengeance to be implemented in a codified system of laws.

 

The fact of the matter is that my family member was/is a murderer, and is clearly in the wrong between the two. I, personally, don't usually support the death sentence. I mean some people deserve it (Jack the Ripper types)... but I pretty much agree with your last paragraph. All I'm saying is that until people can find out a sensible way to deal with serial killers, the Death Penalty is the easiest option to go with. And, honestly, Death is quite a bit more humane than imprisonment. At least as far as I can tell.

 

Why should Jack the Ripper be put to death? Imprisonment does the job just as well. If necessary, put him in solitary.

 

I think that itself is a sensible solution to deal with serial killers. They are still humans. Don't butcher them.

 

Certainly, in situations where keeping the prisoner alive is dangerous, I say put him to death without a doubt, but whenever we can avoid that penalty without endangering society,I think we should.

 

As for the humanity of the penalty, that is certainly disputable. There have been issues, of late, regarding the methods by which the penalty is applied, for one thing.

 

And for another, I don't think a single convict on death row would for a second say they preferred their status. We value our lives. So do criminals.

 

 

The death penalty doesn't really have anything to do with humanity or being fair to the criminal. It's just the principal of the entire thing. I mean, there are exceptions (people who are clearly mentally unstable) but the fact still remains; if a person has murdered, it's only justice for the murderer to face the same penalty. I agree with the fact that death isn't as human as it should be. Both the Lethal Injection and Electric Chair are incredibly painful. I think that the best way to sentence a person to death is through Nitrogen Asphyxiation (now outlawed if I remember correctly) seeing as the person can't even tell there's a lack of oxygen.

 

And I highly doubt a single murder victim wanted to be murdered. Why should the murderer be given mercy when he showed no mercy for the victim?

[The Dark One]

[spoiler=QUOTEFEST]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

Not really.

 

Somebody does an even greater crime to society than the other criminals' date=' so we spend more money on him? Money that will not A. mitigate his crime. B. Make that crime occur less often. or C. Rehabilitate him, since he's now dead.

 

In the end, we lose out.

 

All for what. Some silly sense of justice?

[/quote']

 

Money and moral justice can't be paired. If someone killed a member of your family that you cared very much about, you'd probably want that person to be dead too. It's a slap in the face to the family of the murdered person. Granted, we should find a more cost efficient and humane form of death penalty (nitrogen asphyxiation). Another problem (albeit an uncommon problem) people could face is the fact that organized crime can be committed from inside Prison.

 

It's quite possible that I would. But, being a family member, I'm hardly in a position to give an unbiased judgement.

 

Now, imagine if you were the family member of the killer. You'd likely NOT want him dead. Of course, you're equally biased in this situation, but the point is validated. We're causing more death and suffering, and for no tangible purpose.

 

Vengeance is NOT morality. Vengeance is a petty, animalistic, desire to destroy that which opposes us. It is not necessary, nor is is good, for vengeance to be implemented in a codified system of laws.

 

The fact of the matter is that my family member was/is a murderer, and is clearly in the wrong between the two. I, personally, don't usually support the death sentence. I mean some people deserve it (Jack the Ripper types)... but I pretty much agree with your last paragraph. All I'm saying is that until people can find out a sensible way to deal with serial killers, the Death Penalty is the easiest option to go with. And, honestly, Death is quite a bit more humane than imprisonment. At least as far as I can tell.

 

Why should Jack the Ripper be put to death? Imprisonment does the job just as well. If necessary, put him in solitary.

 

I think that itself is a sensible solution to deal with serial killers. They are still humans. Don't butcher them.

 

Certainly, in situations where keeping the prisoner alive is dangerous, I say put him to death without a doubt, but whenever we can avoid that penalty without endangering society,I think we should.

 

As for the humanity of the penalty, that is certainly disputable. There have been issues, of late, regarding the methods by which the penalty is applied, for one thing.

 

And for another, I don't think a single convict on death row would for a second say they preferred their status. We value our lives. So do criminals.

 

 

The death penalty doesn't really have anything to do with humanity or being fair to the criminal. It's just the principal of the entire thing. I mean, there are exceptions (people who are clearly mentally unstable) but the fact still remains; if a person has murdered, it's only justice for the murderer to face the same penalty. I agree with the fact that death isn't as human as it should be. Both the Lethal Injection and Electric Chair are incredibly painful. I think that the best way to sentence a person to death is through Nitrogen Asphyxiation (now outlawed if I remember correctly) seeing as the person can't even tell there's a lack of oxygen.

 

And I highly doubt a single murder victim wanted to be murdered. Why should the murderer be given mercy when he showed no mercy for the victim?

 

See, that's the inconsistency. How is it justice to put somebody to death. Like, ever? Nobody deserves to be killed. Granted, many of these people didn't give respect that right to life regarding their victims, but I don't see how that lets us do the same to them.