Just to play devil's advocate a moment - what do we owe to a criminal?

We owe it to society at large to (at least attempt to) rehabillitate a criminal rather than alienate them.

That's the beauty of the death penalty. Barring zombies, NO ONE ever reoffends. Also, WHY do we those crimminals. Hell, they owe US.

[ 11-27-2005, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Sir Degrader ]

I've already answered that question.
If they owe us so much, why don't we give them a chance to repay that debt, by re-intergrating them into sociey, instead of locking them up.

[ 11-27-2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Szass-Tam ]

How on earth can a murderer repay his debt? Can he bring back who he killed? Can a rapist restore his victim's self esteem, health? Can a terrorist wipe out the sterotypes he's created for his people?

Look, not everyone can be rehabillitated, but some can. We should at least attempt a serious rehabillitation program for those who can reform, rather than writing off all offenders as outsiders.

Why should the onus be on US? The programs are there for those who are willing to try to change, and we can all see how sucessful they've been...

A rehabillitation scheme in Delaware reduced reoffending to 31%.
How sucessfull is the current system? 60% of short sentences re-offend. It doesn't work.

What crime? Proof? Any other information?

Most of the discussion in this thread seems to be about the death penalty generally, rather than specifically about how Singapore implements it. We can argue for weeks on end as to whether the death penalty is good or not, and never change anyone's mind. Let's talk specifically about Singapore...

One key factor that distinguishes S'pore's death penalty from other countries is that the death penalty is MANDATORY for drug trafficking. If found guilty, regardless of circumstance, the death penalty will be applied. The judge or jury has no ability to dictate a more lenient sentence. The judge cannot take account of the circumstances of the case, or whether the defendant cooperated with authorities.

In my mind that is just grossly unjust. Anyone agree? Shouldn't the judge have the ability to vary the sentence if the facts of the case support this?