If you murder someone intentionally, then you to will be killed. If you steal, you work for them to make it up, etc. If you do drugs you go to war for free etc. I don't know - whats your opinion. Can we make a better way to punish the bad without housing them in a prison where many are not getting better?
136386
I'm a liberal and I'll take this one step further - Let the victim (or the victims family) choose the punishment. \n\nI get the first 2 (murder and theft) but not the third one. Drugs and war? A more logical one would be to work for free (community service) in a rehab clinic. \n\nThe reason we in the US have so much crime is because we have so many rights. With great freedom comes great responsibility. Most Americans can't handle the responsibility.
89662
no i don't think executing anyone is a good way to go about it.  we are supposed to be a more open and tolerant society and it makes no sense to proport such violence among people who are serving their country, even if they do it less than perfect.
298244
I would of course forgive them, and then convince them to submit to the authorities and face the consequences of their action. I would support jail, or even death if he murdered someone or committed some other crime worthy of capital punishment. If he were still a minor and the crime were committed against myself I would most likely press charges, though it would be difficult. Letting the guilty go free is a heinous crime in itself. It destroys the criminal and endangers the population. Just because you forgive someone does not exempt them from consequences. I am raising my son to understand that every action has consequences in the hopes that this will prevent him from becoming a criminal.
206538
your not out of line, you are entitled to your opinion\n\nbank robbers arent violent, fraudsters arent violent, fraud is on the increase especially with the internet, and recently i got my bank details swiped.\n\nThese people arent violent, but are the scurge of society, and stil need to be imprisoned for some amount of time, AND THEN SHOULD BE TAGGED PERHAPS. or need a slap....\n\nI am sure some non-violent criminals who are serving shorter sentence could be let out earlier with tagging. However Tagging doesn't stop their need for drugs once they're back outside. And crime is how they fund a daily habit. As for drug dealers many just see prison as an occupational hazard.\n \nKeeping people in prison must be costing us as tax payers an awful lot of money\n\nThe prison system would not be as critical as it is now if the law was harsher on criminals. Some sentences are too lenient and to not deter people from re-offending. Also prisons are too easy once you are in there.\n\nAll those in prison are there for a reason - ie they've done something that incurs their loss of liberty. Prison should be hard, real hard. Sentences should be served in full. Many people have been affected by crime and deserve Justice.\n\nI do not think more prison should be built, because more prison will make more prisoners, Prison often serves as a school for criminals, especially first time offenders. Build more prisons, generate more prisoners.\n\nUnless we plan to lock criminals away permanently we need to devise a more long term strategy to prevent re-offending. The government needs to use its brains rather than brawn here.
223314
I agree wholeheartedly, and think it is a shame.\n\nTo make matters worse, prisoners come out worse than they went in--due to being labeled--and due to being made to live among worse criminals.
630511
So do the "not yet born" have nothing in store for them if they should be born? What else should we do with those who would risk the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of the rest of us? We have a right to be free to try those things, don't we? I surely don't want someone infringing upon those rights. Do you? Prison isn't the only "solution" to crime. Sometimes the death penalty can be a deterrent.....but only *if* it's used. How the hell can someone be on Death Row for 15-20 years and waste our tax dollars so? If we utilize our court system to determine someone's guilt, isn't it just as wrong to put an "innocent" person in jail for a long time as it seems it is (to you) to execute them? We're still "playing God" by determining another human being's fate for the length of the sentence.\n\nAnd why is it some don't mind killing fetuses (who have wronged NO ONE) but want criminals (who have wronged SOMEONE) kept alive? That's a$$-backwards, isn't it?\n\n\n\n>>Do only those not yet breathing have the right to live?<<\n\nHow would you or any of us be here if the answer to that were "yes"?
529292
If you rejoice in the pain and death of a murderer, how are you any different?\n\nIf it is revenge that people crave, life in prison in obscurity would be much worse.
383431
No. Revenge is not what we are looking for. True justice is. I believe in very strict punishment but let the jury decide.
597681
NO!\n\nA mentally ill, mentally disturbed, or mentally handicapped person should be treated no differently than the rest of us, if they are a criminal.\n\nHere's why:\nA murderer kills a bunch of people, including little children. His lawyer says he is mentally unstable. He does not get the maximum sentence, in fact the judge orders him into a psychiatric ward instead of prison. Then, another person kills a bunch of people, and his lawyer isn't smart enough to use the "insanity" loophole. He gets the death penalty.\nHow is this a fair, consistent, just system?\nHere's another little tidbit for your brain to chew on:\n\nIsn't EVERY serial murderer, by definition, insane?\nIsn't EVERY rapist, by definition, insane?\nIsn't EVERY armed robber, terrorist, or assassin, by definition, unstable?\n\nEvery immoral criminal act is a sign of psychotic or sociopathic tendencies. So, why have prisons? Why not release everyone with a doctor's note? Execute all the murderers, retarded, insane, underage, you name it. Make the system fair. There's no reason why one murderer should be executed while another one goes free on a bullsh*t technicality.\n\n"But, I don't know the difference between right and wrong!"\nSo? How does that excuse you from consequences?\nDOESN'T THAT MAKE YOU EVEN MORE A DANGER TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS??? HOW IS THAT A GOOD THING?\nBeing ignorant does not make you innocent. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's what the law says. It should apply equally to everyone.\n\nWhat do you do with a dog that doesn't know better than to viciously attack humans? You put them down. That's all there is to it. Save the innocent, punish the guilty.
373160
The problem is our judicial system is very flawed.  There are many innocent people in jail, and guilty ones in the street.  I agree some people are given lighter sentences than what they deserve and others harsher than they deserve.  But our system is what it is, if you don't plan on getting out there and trying to make a change then there is no point in complaining about it.  I am back and forth on the issue of the death penalty,  but to answer your question, yes there should be certain criteria for sending someone to deathrow.   There should be certain regulations.  But every crime is different, and until it happens to you or someone in your family it is hard to say.  and that goes for being the defendant or the victim.  it is hard on both families.
209439
I too believe that life without parole should be the maximum sentence for any crime.  In a world where the law and conviction system is full of inaccuracies it is too much of a risk to sentence someone to death-EVEN with a confession there is always the chance that they are innocent or did not play as big a part in a murder as they claim to have done.  Its AMAZING the amount of false confessions people will make under pressure-particularly those with a learning difficulty.  Also, the people who are actively involved in the execution of prisoners are surely then also commiting murder and they will have been involved in the deaths of many more people than the inmates they are executing-does that then mean that they deserve to die for choosing a career that involves the killing of others? \nThe death penalty is in no way a deterrent (this is a statistical fact) to murder either and is purely a 'revenge' punishment.  \nIt is not up to anyone to take the life of another and after all who decides who lives and who dies for murder?  Some murder/rapists get life, and another one time murderer could get death. It is a decision that NO-ONE should be allowed to make and it is ALL about Governments having the ultimate control-Death Row Inmates can be put on SUICIDE WATCH if they are deemed 'at risk'.  By all means give them life in prison with a little less of the luxuries they currently receive, but we cannot choose and ponder over who lives and who dies.
182927
The punishment should fit the crime.  Our justice system is too lax.  Prisoners complain their rights are being violated.  What about the rights of others they violated when they committed their crime?  Prisoners should have no rights.  \n\nIt's pathetic that prisoners eat better and have health care at their fingertips when law abiding citizens and their families can't afford 3 meals per day or health care.  Doesn't sound like punishment to me.
111902
I feel if there were witnesses, videotapes, irrefutable evidence, a confession from a megalomaniac sociopath, a serial killer, that kind of thing, or cold blooded i beat my wife to death because she didn't cook breakfast within a certain amount of time and the eggs were cold.  they are not rehab people. no amount of rehab will make charles manson "sane" (he is sane...just doesn't care, sociopath, tha's the word).  kill them like you would a rabid dog. they don't fit the bill of humanity, humane or even worth the tax dollars to make them suffer worse and live life in prison. although i also think life in prison is probably not the hell it is for other people, for people like this. \nI think that DNA evidence has been screwed up a few times, which is why I'm saying to make sure you know what you've got on your hands and in a lot of cases, there is no question.  I don't believe in the death penalty for children, even if they are evil in the making,  i don't believe in trying them as adults, it's abhorrent. a lawmakers way to hell, everyone knows the adolescent mind is crazy with hormones, changes and egocentric behaviour that's normal--you can't hold them to the same standard and if they can't be rehabilitated, find out through a good juvenile (i wish) system, not an arena made for adults whose minds, however small, are fully grown. never put a child in an adult prison with the rest of the prisoners. let them sit in a cell and listen. overnight or two, don't tell them when they're getting out.  you'll have them scared straighter than a southern belles deportment. the death penalty is for the rabid.  life in prison is worse, and for those offenders who did horrible things as apart of a life decidedly crime filled on purpose let them rot. I think its funny that people think life in prison is more humane anyway.  I have my doubts.
290683
Killing people that kill people to show that killing people is wrong... I agree with imprisonment.
236797
You ask a fair question. I agree with you- you would think that in an "advanced country" such as this that we would have learned something from the "Prohibition". \nFar too much of our jail and prison space has been filled up with people who's only crime was that they "got high". Yet prescription drug addicts and alcoholics are not sanctioned in this way. To me, it goes against what it says in our Constitution (regarding "cruel and unusual punishment") to lock people up for that. They are already hurting. We could really learn something from other countries who have legalized certain drugs. (Such as Holland, for instance.) After their legalization, crime rates dropped, tax-payers dollars were saved, families kept intact, substances being used became safer to use, and contrary to what some may believe, usage rates did not "go up". More money was spent on treatment, and the "black market" (along with all the other crime that is attached to that) was virtually eliminated. Why can't this country see the benefits of legalization? The "War on Drugs" is just as "ambiguous" as the "War on Terrorism".  We can't "win" it. We must learn and implement better ways of dealing with these issues. Or, both "wars" are going to leave us "bankrupt" and still without an "end" solution in sight.\n-Tera (time4u420@yahoo)
239622
I think it depends on the person really. Some learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others and can be released and will never commit a serious crime again. Others, however, wont and always will. I heard a story about a president or leader or dictator or something high in south america that had a prison built for 15000 prisoners. When it was done, he moved in the 15,00 prisoners, left them in there for 2 days as if everything was normal, then on the third day, he burnt the prison down with the prisoners still inside. His reason for doing so was to send a message to anyone else that was thinking of commiting a crime in the future.
305808
If someone kills someone out of self defense then that person probably had it coming and the person who killed because the were defending themselves should have no punishment.  I think war is a different subject.  The point of war is to kill and they are taught to do it therefore they should not be punished.  I know wars are sad but humans aren't perfect and they still happen.  If anyone murders someone on accident (manslaughter) than they should spend some jail time.  If someone killed someone on purpose, whether they planned to do it or not, They should be killed.  If someone sexually or physically harassed someone they should be beaten and put in jail (yes it's brutal but there would be a lot less crime if we had harsher punishments) .  If someone was raped, than the rapist should be put to death.\nI think that punishments should be very harsh when someone purposely harms someone else, unless it is self defense.  If punishments were more harsh on things like these there would be a lot less of it.