- + Varfslura joined Debatewise
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + *Bambii* voted on the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Petar Antevski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska edited the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + *Bambii* edited the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + *Bambii* voted on a point for the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Evels Flulky joined Global Youth Panel
- + *Bambii* voted on a point for the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Zabrcanec voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Rlblois joined Debatewise
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Petar Antevski edited the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Emmanuel Miche edited the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + *Bambii* voted on a point for the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Zabrcanec voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIMINAL.
Normally punishments fit the crime more than the criminal. Countries have big long lists of minimum and maximum sentances for particular crimes. Within this there is a little leaway dependent upon the state of mind of the criminal, repeat offences and what their motivation was.
punishment should fit the criminal.
Yes, because... It will cause less re-offenders.
If a criminal commits a crime because they were forced to for financial reasons, under pressure from a gang, for revenge, because of a psychological condition etc. and they are released from prison after their sentence without any thought to their circumstances, they are likely to re-offend.
What exactly is the justice system supposed to do about the situation even if they do know? Directly intervene in every criminal's personal life? Keep them all in prison until society has improved to the point where they won't be given a reason to re-offend?
Changing the punishment isn't the solution. Social services, doctors and psychiatrists, the people in Government responsible for conditions getting this bad, along with the criminal themselves who made bad choices in their lives, all have to work together, make sure they do their jobs well and don't try and do each other's jobs.
Vote on this point: It will cause less re-offenders.
See history of changes to this point
punishment should fit the criminal.
Yes, because... punishment does fit the criminal in the sense that every accused person is tried in court
before being locked up or sentenced to being locked. Therefore the punishment is catered/tailored/wound around the individual situation,circumstance,psychological state/position of the criminal and customised accordingly.
The punishment may be standard but leniences are made if the jkudge thinks they need to be and the time period of the sentence that criminals must serve is also decided by judge and jury for each specific case.
however different punishments may suit different criminals; a different form of retribution may be called for for different people.
Yes but the punishment say, for murder is fixed to life-sentence or death sentence (capital punishment) yes the duration of wait and passing can be flexible but the punishment itself is standard
Vote on this point: punishment does fit the criminal in the sense that every accused person is tried in court
See history of changes to this point
punishment should fit the criminal.
Yes, because... if a criminal is a masochist
then s/he will be elated by fierce/violent interrogation methods and punishing him/her with standard painful means, will prove futile or counterproductive. They will enjoy having their hands cut off, or being beaten or derided and so on.
Feeding someone's psychological problems, whether or not the person thinks of it that way, can only damage them. The pleasure they feel is self-destructive, so enhancing that pleasure furthers the cause of their destruction.
Vote on this point: if a criminal is a masochist
See history of changes to this point
punishment should fit the criminal.
No, because... The onus should not be on punishing the criminal.
The criminal should be punished only in so far as it is necessary to compensate everyone who has been deprived of something because of the crime. The criminal should be made aware that they owe something, what and who they owe, that they are going to pay it back whether they like it or not and that taking it from the person will only result in them having to compensate the person again. Anything more is a waste of time, anything less means that the work isn't done yet.
By owing a debt I include non-material debts such as health and psychological damage, actual lives, time wasted etc. I also do not mean that I think the criminal should pay with their own phsyical health, life, time etc. because this doesn't actually lead to anybody being compensated, just to more people suffering.
In summary, the compensation should fit the debt, not the punishment fit the criminal.
See history of changes to this point
Vote on this debate: punishment should fit the criminal.
Modified:
06 Apr 2010
Point 1. It will cause less re-offenders.
If a criminal commits a crime because they were forced to for financial reasons, under pressure from a gang, for revenge, because of a psychological condition etc. and they are released from prison after their sentence without any thought to their circumstances, they are likely to re-offend.
What exactly is the justice system supposed to do about the situation even if they do know? Directly intervene in every criminal's personal life? Keep them all in prison until society has improved to the point where they won't be given a reason to re-offend?
Changing the punishment isn't the solution. Social services, doctors and psychiatrists, the people in Government responsible for conditions getting this bad, along with the criminal themselves who made bad choices in their lives, all have to work together, make sure they do their jobs well and don't try and do each other's jobs.
Point 2. punishment does fit the criminal in the sense that every accused person is tried in court
before being locked up or sentenced to being locked. Therefore the punishment is catered/tailored/wound around the individual situation,circumstance,psychological state/position of the criminal and customised accordingly.
The punishment may be standard but leniences are made if the jkudge thinks they need to be and the time period of the sentence that criminals must serve is also decided by judge and jury for each specific case.
however different punishments may suit different criminals; a different form of retribution may be called for for different people.
Yes but the punishment say, for murder is fixed to life-sentence or death sentence (capital punishment) yes the duration of wait and passing can be flexible but the punishment itself is standard
Point 3. if a criminal is a masochist
then s/he will be elated by fierce/violent interrogation methods and punishing him/her with standard painful means, will prove futile or counterproductive. They will enjoy having their hands cut off, or being beaten or derided and so on.
Feeding someone's psychological problems, whether or not the person thinks of it that way, can only damage them. The pleasure they feel is self-destructive, so enhancing that pleasure furthers the cause of their destruction.
Point 1. The onus should not be on punishing the criminal.
It is a waste of time to 'punish'. Who does it compensate exactly, other than satisfying an emotional whim and making a very primitive attempt to show the criminal why they shouldn't keep depriving people of things?
The criminal should be punished only in so far as it is necessary to compensate everyone who has been deprived of something because of the crime. The criminal should be made aware that they owe something, what and who they owe, that they are going to pay it back whether they like it or not and that taking it from the person will only result in them having to compensate the person again. Anything more is a waste of time, anything less means that the work isn't done yet.
By owing a debt I include non-material debts such as health and psychological damage, actual lives, time wasted etc. I also do not mean that I think the criminal should pay with their own phsyical health, life, time etc. because this doesn't actually lead to anybody being compensated, just to more people suffering.