6 months for Murder! (1 Viewer)

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:22
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,392

In the UK, Thomas Cashman has been jailed for 42 years for the murder of schoolgirl Olivia Pratt-Korbel.​


A former gang member appeared on TV just now and stated that the sentence was much too short, it should be life.

He said that there are gang members in prison serving the same length of sentence for murdering other gang members, therefore the 42-year sentence is not a deterrent.

It occurred to me that indeed a life sentence should be applied when gang members accidentally kill innocent bystanders, especially children.

And then I thought, why not put a gang member that murders another gang member in prison, but only for 6 months.

This would have the benefit that gang members would be more likely to murder other gang members, it would deter people becoming gang members, and there would be a significant drop in the number of gang members through people not joining up and through gang members being killed by their own.

But would this be unethical?

What do you think?
 

ebs17

Well-known member
Local time
Today, 05:22
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
2,002
And then I thought, why not put a gang member that murders another gang member in prison, but only for 6 months.
And whoever kills the boss of the gang gets a free beer as punishment.

No organized crime without gang bosses.

However, this could be very dangerous, since the activities of companies and organizations can often be classified as criminal.
 

AngelSpeaks

Active member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:22
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Messages
418

In the UK, Thomas Cashman has been jailed for 42 years for the murder of schoolgirl Olivia Pratt-Korbel.​


A former gang member appeared on TV just now and stated that the sentence was much too short, it should be life.

He said that there are gang members in prison serving the same length of sentence for murdering other gang members, therefore the 42-year sentence is not a deterrent.

It occurred to me that indeed a life sentence should be applied when gang members accidentally kill innocent bystanders, especially children.

And then I thought, why not put a gang member that murders another gang member in prison, but only for 6 months.

This would have the benefit that gang members would be more likely to murder other gang members, it would deter people becoming gang members, and there would be a significant drop in the number of gang members through people not joining up and through gang members being killed by their own.

But would this be unethical?

What do you think?
I agree. And then another gang member can kill them. Also regular citizens should be allowed to kill gang members.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 20:22
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,922
As tempting as it seems, my personal opinion is keep citizenry out of the punishment business.
I can see that as a quick road to anarchy. You think it will be a quick humane death by a good guy towards a bad guy, but wait until they get creative - executing based on rumors, wanting to hurt rather than execute, punishing family members, or when the 'bad guy' has an attractive female family members. No, that would degenerate into a huge mess. Even "citizen arrest" concept only works in movies.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:22
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,382
@Isaac, I have to agree with you.

The point of our justice system is that a personally affected party cannot be a member of the group that metes out justice, for that would make it revenge. The entire idea of justice is that it MUST be impartial. In our USA system, the few times I've actually served on a jury, the judge polled the jury for their knowledge of the defendant, the events in question, the witnesses, other jurors, and members of the court. In one case, we were even asked if we knew anyone who had been raped, since the case included ra** as one of its charges. Though it is hard to assure, the point was clear. The fairness of the result depends on the fairness of how you get the result.

All too often, people talk about wanting justice when the truth is that they really want revenge. You hear it in the wailing relatives of yet another killing among impoverished neighborhoods. I can understand why there is a Biblical admonition about vengeance. Another Biblical admonition, "let the punishment fit the crime" (though not exactly how the phrase was initially used), depends on there being nothing personal involved in delivering justice. Otherwise "an eye for an eye" quickly becomes "your life for a minor scratch" or something extreme like that. And again, if you let personalities in during sentencing, it becomes vengeance instead of justice.

An oddity regarding justice is that if anyone is sent to prison as a child molester, their time will be a continual Hell because even criminals hate the child molesters. They punish the so-called "short eyes" (to our UK friends, that is prison slang for child molesters) with beatings, stabbings, stompings, and many other types of harsh treatment. I cannot give you overall statistics because they are published state-by-state, but for California, child molesters die in prison at a rate twice that of any other type of prisoner. However, it is usually a case of impartial justice because I guess even totally unrelated prisoners have their standards about whom they allow in their "society."

There was a 1950s movie that was a classic in its day and still has its moments now. The Day the Earth Stood Still was drawn from a short story "Farewell to the Master" in which a space-faring robot is the judge, jury, and executioner even though a person accompanies the robot to act as its spokesperson. It is relevant to the discussion because in that story, it was revealed that the robots were created to be totally dispassionate, logical, and swift in delivering justice. It was in that sense clearly based on the USA ideal of justice even though we know that errors sometimes occur. There is another discussion or two on this forum relating to emerging AI and how it affects society. How long do you think it would be before we get an AI judge?
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 20:22
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,922
An oddity regarding justice is that if anyone is sent to prison as a child molester, their time will be a continual Hell because even criminals hate the child molesters. They punish the so-called "short eyes" (to our UK friends, that is prison slang for child molesters) with beatings, stabbings, stompings, and many other types of harsh treatment. I cannot give you overall statistics because they are published state-by-state, but for California, child molesters die in prison at a rate twice that of any other type of prisoner. However, it is usually a case of impartial justice because I guess even totally unrelated prisoners have their standards about whom they allow in their "society."

This may surprise many of those who view me as a harsh, mean, religious zealot, but:

I think the above-references statistic tells us something terrible. Child molestors should not be silently or tacitly punished beyond what the law has determined based on any type of unspoken prison punishment. ESPECIALLY nowadays, when more than half of all people incarcerated as a Sex Offender has more to do with sexual contact with a person between, say, 15 and 18 than it does true pedophilia.

Confusing or molesting a child, mentally or physically, is terrible, and we must try to eliminate and avoid it at all costs.

But torturing people is never the answer. I maintain my strict adherence to the differentiation between impulse/desire and action.

If you are attracted to children, that does not automatically make you a monster, if there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that attraction, and weren't the one who chose or triggered it. What makes it bad is the action taken.

I am not a monster for noticing my neighbor's wife is pretty, but taking an action along those lines is different.

We should be compassionate for people who struggle with wrong desires, and maintain a strict differentiation between desire and fulfillment.

Neither punishing the mere existence of an impulse, nor pretending that there is no difference between the two when it's convenient to us (i.d., "identity").

Frankly, it seems that very few people exist who are committed to making that distinction any more. They are either on one side or the other, both are wrong.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom