UGLY

I was watching something on the history of punishment and how imprisonment was not a type of punishment until fairly recently. My question is should we revert back to swift justice or maintain the prison system as we have it. Also what punishment would be fit for what crime?

Zapp Brannigan

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that the current system doesn't seem to be as much of a deterrent as we would like.

__________________
"I've made it with a woman. Inform the men."

sgallan

Lock em up and throw away the key. In hard economic times it gives a lot of people good jobs, and keeps a couple of million of people out of the job market, meaning less competition for jobs. And for the ones in prison who want to do something with their time, it keeps me employed.

__________________
I am 48, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

RYou

Maybe it's the forum, or just a large dose of sarcasm, but that doesn't carry the tone of the SG I know.

sgallan

I've given up on this subject. Sometimes when in the rat race it is just better to let the rats have it.

__________________
I am 48, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

hardcore

Ugly asked should we revert back to swift justice or maintain the prison system as we have it.

It is not an either or situation IMO. There are no cut and dried answers that will solve what is a national crisis due to the sheer magnitude of the problem. According to recent Justice Department figures 7 million people, or one in every 32 American adults, are behind bars, on probation or on parole, 2.2 million are in actual lock-up. Of that figure 49% are for drug related offenses.

While I believe that there are crimes that deserve incarceration, i.e. crimes against people that involve violence, and crimes that deserve life with no possibility of parole, i.e. crimes against the innocent. I do not believe that crimes against property should have mandatory jail time. In many cases repayment to the victim with penalty, repayment of court costs and community service would be a more appropriate punishment. As part of the sentence for those without education or work skill sets they should be given the opportunity to learn a trade or work skill that might help them to break free of the crime mind set. Something along the lines of the Job Corps. Learn, earn, and pay back to society that which you have taken.

I know that this is an oversimplification but the current system is broke. It only breeds a harder type of criminal not to mention the cost to society and the lasting harm that it does to the families left behind.

Spider

In the wake of some tragic home break-ins here in Connecticut, the governor and most republicans are pushing for a three strikes and you're out law. I tend to reject any mandatory sentencing laws because they don't make any provision for extenuating circumstances, and people for whom the law wasn't intended get swept up in it. Each case is different and justice should fit the crime and the circumstances. I'm all for lock 'em up and throw away the key, or even fry 'em in some cases, and I don't like revolving door justice (enough cliches?), but I also don't want to see borderline criminals or rehabilitatable people suffer unjust penalties.

__________________
"Love never dies." The Beatles

JensenS

I thought the same thing...

In terms of the actual topic, I like the look of hardcore's take pretty good.

RYou

We've got three strikes here in NJ and the Gov wants to recind it. Seems the jails are overcrowded, the state budget is in the toilet, in order to cut the budget he wants to shink the jail population. The problem, the majority are three timers. So now he wants to kill the law so he can reduce the population. Three timers here in NJ, are triple conviction felons.

JustFishing

Three time felonists? Sounds like they've had their chances and blew it.