taurus29, I have a few main concerns with the use of an eye for an eye approach.

- Our legal systems do get corrupted. Innocent people do get convicted. A death penalty once carried out is very hard to overturn.
- Regular use of the death penalty seems to have a history of moving along class or racial lines. Societies seem to be better at executing people who are different than ones just like ourselves who have done wrong. Poor people or coloured people are easier to execute that good local boys.
- I suspect that societies which use an eye for an eye are hardened by it. That it's not just the guilty who are harmed by the process. I don't have hard evidence to back up that viewpoint and may be wrong but it's a factor for me.

Celivia, I do think that keeping a person alive in prison for the term of their natural life is an inhumane punishment. The person with a "never to be released" stamp should have the option of ending it earlier in a painless manner if they choose. The same for the person facing a death sentence.

Likewise keeping someone on death row for years seems cruel. What I don't know is how much of that is necessary. Is the appeals process more complex than it needs to be when that occurs? Is there a better balance between that and the convicted and executed the same day approach?

Any thoughts on how to safely confine a person in a humane manner without placing others at risk? It's not something I've seen any satisfactory answers for.

R0bert

Taurus,
I have a problem with ‘an eye for an eye’. We cannot bring a murdered person back to life by killing the murderer.
When we talk about protecting ‘the vulnerable’ in our communities, we spoke about our children. But the vulnerable are also the underprivileged.
The more resources the defendant can afford the better his/her chance to escape death penalty.
It’s a civil rights issue. It’s about dignity of a whole nation. Retribution should not be the standard of a modern society.
As I pointed out, and RObert hi-lited in the post after yours, our legal systems do get corrupted.

RObert,
Good point about the hardened societies.
Yes, I agree that life in prison without parole is also inhumane. Even though I still think it’s the least imperfect option (the other option being the death penalty), I have been thinking about what you said with regard to an option for a person ‘never to be released’.

I’ve always been pro voluntary euthanasia in cases of incurable physical disease- and perhaps I have to try to look at it from the same angle as I look at euthanasia.

I am not 100% convinced, but I can discuss this for the sake of exploring the topic because you made an interesting point; not to be disgarded.

Imagine that if voluntary euthanasia would be seen as ‘moral’ by the vast majority of Australians- because it is inhumane to let an incurable person suffer never-ending, unstoppable pain until s/he dies a natural death…

...then perhaps it can also be seen as moral to give a person convicted of life in prison this choice as well, on grounds that s/he is socially (instead of physically)ill and incurable and will keep suffering ‘killing attacks’ that will also cause him pain- and will cause society terrible loss and pain as well.

I am talking about serial killers like child molesters who kill their victims- the people that are obviously going to remain repeat offenders when set free.
They could possibly have the option of requesting euthanasia.

continued

RObert, you have created a new option. Perhaps this is the least imperfect and most humane option?

There will probably be a reduction in suicides in prisons as well.

It doesn’t sound too bad to me. I’ll give it some more consideration.
What do others think? Are there more options?

About your question how to safely confine a person in a humane manner without placing others at risk, I don’t have an answer for this problem. I think that whenever there are a bunch of prisoners together, there will be always the risk of fights amongst them and against prison wards.
Improving on security, the installment of camera’s etc might reduce the risk.
Also, reduction of boredom will help.

President Bush taking away the life sentenced prisoners' art supplies and making life worse for them in general was an incentive for some to kill others to 'pass' for the death penalty.

Like it or not our world leaders believe in 'retribution'..retribution is the cause for all our wars, perceived or real , take 911 as the most recent example.The whole of Iraq was torn down, bombed and burned due to retribution and the fact that Iraq never bombed the Twin Towers was not even taken into account.Is our wisdom any more valid than world leaders who have vast experience in the validity of this question?
Retribution is a natural human instinct and i cant stress too strongly enough that no matter how civilised we think we are, we are in actual fact just animals and animals deal in retribution.

I see your point about the forgiving sinners and when you say that killing a murderer will not bring back a dead child, no, your right..but that person can never kill another child, the whole point here surely.

Still think that theres something very perverse about asking taxpayers to support child rapists and killers..the death row option..well swifter bearucratic responses should come into play

With DNA testing etc I fell there is very little room for error..it is unlikely, as opposed to the old days that the wrong person could be executed.,and even if the rich and privelidged do extort the legal process that still does not invalidate the use of the death penalty as a effective tool.
As for humane life sentences?Why should they be humane?What human feeling and compassion did he show to the child he murdered?

Surgical castration removes sexual drive in men..you mentioned that we do not remove the hands though..if Im not properly interpeting your meaning I apolagise..but castration would take away the desire to recommit an offense unless he was also a serial murderer and thats a different story.

OK..I want to ask the question Robert and Celivia, why do you say that they should have a choice?

I need you to answer that for me before I can go on to answer properly to your posts..I can try second guess your reasoning but I dont want to presume I am that privvy to the workings of your mind.

Why should society give these'pple' a choice?

taurus29, I tend to think that the retribution approach is tied in with a significant proportion of human conflict. To show some of my cultural bias I think that the more advanced societies tend to move away from justice based on retribution.

I see the purpose of our justice system being to protect society from those who won't abide by it's rules not to get revenge on those who have done wrong.

I don't much like seeing my taxes used to feed and house those who have chosen to reject societies rules either. As I said earlier I don't have a lot of confidence in our legal system not to get corrupted. I wonder if in the future we will learn some things we don't know now which might provide other options.

As to why they should get a choice, if your aim is retribution then it does not make sense, maximising the suffering of the offender becomes a priority.

For those who see the justice system as being there to protect society then we need to look at what produces the best outcomes for society. That includes prison conditions that provide a balance between discouragement to commit crimes and rehabilitation. It also means a desire for the sciety we want protected to behave better than those we regard as criminals. If we behave as badly as the criminals then it is might makes right not justice.

If we condone making people suffer for retributions sake then it's not a big step to add in torture, once we've reached that point we are just haggling over the price.

I don't want innocents executed nor do I wish to see the suffering of the guilty drawn out unnecessarily just because we can. We gain nothing and probably harm ourselves and others when we take that approach.

R0bert