Fair warning: This may or may be (I can’t remember) my first GD thread. It’s one of 'em, anyway, and I hope it’s appropriate. This is also meant to be a semi-death-penalty debate.
Can a person be judged such a burden on society (in that their positive contributions are outweighed by the negative) that they must be permanently removed from said society? I’m assuming guilt and exhaustion of the appeals process, because this is hypothetical.
If the answer is “no”, can life sentences (or similar, like 120 years, etc) be justified?
If the answer is “yes”, is it preferable to keep this person healthy and contained until death by natural causes, rather than put them to death immediately? If so, why?
Yes, if by “burden” you mean the commission of a very serious crime.
Yes. For one thing, it seems to be cheaper even in the current system that does not seem to have sufficient checks and balances to prevent innocent people from being murdered by The State. For a second thing, putting them in prison is not irreversible if it is discovered that a mistake was made whereas killing them is.
Wouldn’t the obvious answer to being a burden on society be exile? Really the burden on society is just an annoyance compared to the main problem of preventing future acts of a similar nature. If they were just a burden on society then they would be sent to some remote island probably.
I say yes. Exile is a nice concept… but who else wants a non-productive citizen? Where would we exile them to?
I say if its work they have a problem with… offer them a work program, if they refuse… kill them.
If its severe mental incapacity, its hard to say. The Spartans would’ve murdered them as soon as it was apparent. They had a great society. But we’ve had a little too much humanitarianism drilled into us to systematically slay the weak minded.
If its because they’re violent or pose a threat to the rest of society and show no signs of rehabilitation… thats its. Prison or death.
It’s harsh. But it would improve society as a whole.
Unless someone has committed some sort of crime then “society” doesn’t have any place in such decisions. I may think some homeless bum drains more then they contribute but I’m not interested in removing him from society.
We have a criminal justice system that attempts to mete out the proper sentence for any given crime. Some people are deemd far to dangerous to live among us and they are sentenced to life in prison. Their crimes do not necessarily warrant a death penalty. So we keep them in prison until they expire.
This is much too vague. In what sense do you mean “society”? Judged by whom? What is the nature of this “burden”? Did “society” willingly accept this burden, or was it coerced?
True enough. Hell, I can think of a lot of people who I believe are more of a burden on society than anything else. Let’s see, first I’d get rid of all of the people driving around the city in their SUVs…then the senior management at the company where I work…then anybody who believes religiously in the “free market”. Hey, maybe this isn’t such a bad idea!
malkavia: “If its severe mental incapacity, its hard to say. The Spartans would’ve murdered them as soon as it was apparent. They had a great society. But we’ve had a little too much humanitarianism drilled into us to systematically slay the weak minded.”
Sorry, *malkavia if you are, unbeknown to me, known for your satirical poses. But if you meant this straight, well…
One could easily say that its those most lacking in humanitarianism who present the greatest burdens to society. But, anyway, what I’m really curious to know is what exactly do you admire so much about the Spartans?
Just like that movie No Escape! The prisoner’s were dropped at a remote island and the strongest survive. That’s the way it should be.
If we can’t exile prisoners we should at least bring back chain gangs and put them to work instead of letting them work out, watch t.v. and get a college education.
I wouldn’t exactly put that on the same list as television and working out. Of course, I’m assuming that an educated prisoner would take advantage of the increased opportunities an education brings, rather than being the best-read carjacker on the block. If it’s true that education reduces recidivism, then that’s probably a better return on my prison investment than really cheap license plates.
And, if it replaces the current education that prisoners get in how to be a better criminal, I’m all for that, too.
