Dranmek...
Believe it or not, I actually respect your views. I even understand them. Go figure. I DO certainly view all life as sacred, as you do. But I do believe that there are times when we cannot hope to rehabilitate a person. It is sad. I wish I could snap my fingers and make all criminals be filled with remorse for what they had done. I cannot. Locking them up doesn't do much either, except make them more aggressive, frustrated, angry... Then if they are released, who will give them a second chance anyway? If your new neighbour knocked on your door and said that by law, he had to tell you he was a child molester, would you want him near your kid?
I respect all life. Really I do. But if some bigger-than-Arnold type guy attacks my wife and I can't fight him off, well, I'd use a gun if I had it and wouldn't feel guilty if he died. I would be SAVING a life (two, probably). And that is what most pro-death penalty people have in their minds: they are defending themselves and loved ones from future harm. How can you fault them for wanting to be safe?
As for the testing thing... Well, I agree it is a bit much, but I'd still rather test on a murderer than an innocent rabbit. And before you say that a human has more intrinsic worth, roleplay the rabbit in question... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-30-2002, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Arnabas ]

Do you want to uphold the universal declaration of human rights?
If so, you must apply it without exception, otherwise it is useless.
I still think that murderer’s should serve life in prison, but that does not mean they should surrender their human rights does it? For if we do not apply them to all, how can we expect (or even deserve) others to apply them to us?[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]In theory I think human rights are great, however, I question wether cable TV, good food, warm quarters (or cool) and such luxuries that most everyone has to pay for and work for as being necessary to afford them their rights.

Then simply do not release them,
Anyway there are many schemes that can be followed, to prevent people from re-offending, for example liasing with them when they are released and helping them to get a job etc and training them in prison. It simply requires appropriate government funding, rather than just shoving people out back into the community without the appropriate skills to get a job etc.

Because it does not work,
It does not prevent murder. The United States has executed 1000's of people, and yet the murders still go on. yet Europe (which has a lower murder rate) there is no death penalty.

Cable T.V perhaps not, but the rest, YES! we must give them shelter & food & acess to education & entertainment etc, if we wish to keep them locked up, we must still not deny them their rights as a human being. Since it is us (the rest of society) that has locked them up, It is our duty to care for them and ensure their wellbeing.

[ 05-30-2002, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]

Chemical castration is one such measure for sex offenders.

Hi there, Yorick
Not to get bitchy, but just to play devil's advocate:
Isn't chemical castration more of a human rights violation than simply locking them up? So according to some, there is really nothing that we are allowed to do to criminals to punish them if we want to call ourselves a just society

Yes but it has actually been proved that a portion of killers/rapists sometimes don't always realise totally what they are doing due to raging levels of testosterone, and that castrated rapists don't even feel the urge anymore.

<font color = lightgreen>Ok. No death penalty and no lengthy prison sentences. That sounds good on paper, but exactly how will this make murderers, specifically murderers under the age of 18, "understand the enormity of what they have done"? Studies also show that one thing many prisoners learn is how to become better criminals.
I am still looking for some ideas about how the system of justice could be made better (I think we can all agree that any racial bias should be removed), but this would unfortunately not be acceptable. I like Arnabas' idea about the remote penal island--exile them.</font>

If they were given for example, a choice between life imprisonment (which is perfectly reasonable for many sex offenders) or Chemical castration & then help, so that they could once again take their place again in normal society, I don’t see anything wrong with that, because some sex offenders will re-offend, and it is for their own & societies good, that they be chemical castrated or otherwise prevented form re-offending.

<font color = lightgreen>How about this:
Do away with the death penalty. First offense results in strict prison sentences with no parole; make the inmates work in a factory, where the profits go to help fund the prison. Second offense results in exile to some small island in the South Pacific.
It is humane, doesn't violate human rights, eases taxpayer burden, and finally gets the repeat offenders out of the picture.</font>