Prisons should only be for dangerous criminals (murderers, rapists, hi-jackers, armed robbers, etc) all other long term prisoners should serve time on state farms and in workshops growing veggies and meat for hospitals, orphanages, schools etc. and making the necessary items needed in these institutions such as beds, matresses, bedding, desks, uniforms and printing books etc.
The short term convicts (more than six months) can stay at home but must work in state institutions as nurse aids, cleaners, helpers, gardeners, maintanance guys and labourers etc.
The really short term convicts would just do community service to the time they would have served (why send a person to prison for two or six months when they can do 1200 or 4320 hours service during the day if they are unemployed and the rest during evenings and weekends?)
"Nobody who has succeeded has not failed along the way"
Arianna Huffington
Read the first 10% of my books "Didymus" and "The BEAST of BIKO BRIDGE" for free
You can also read and download 100% free my short stories "A Real Surprise" and "Pieces of Eight" at
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/332256
Repetitive violent crime is committed by a few in the population, maintaining them alive an incarcerated, whilst it sounds as a civilized action, is an expensive way of maintaining your principle. Death penalty is a way to purge society of this unwanted criminal.
Victor - Knowledge is a blessing or a curse, your current circumstances make you decide!
Solar pumping, Solar Geyser & Solar Security lighting solutions - www.microsolve.co.za
On an emotional level I like the idea of convicts doing some real hard labour, but the free market advocate in me sees subsidized business operators and market distortions. If you get prison gangs to build roads, aren't we harming civil engineering companies? Or if the department of correctional services rents out their prisoners as a raw labour service, aren't they undercutting honest labourers unfairly? I recognize a few of you guys from the electrical contracting forum; how would you feel if prisons made installation electricians out of inmates and then put them to work for free, or not for free but still undercutting you because their marginal cost is near zero?
You'd have to somehow restrict this free labour to areas in which the market fails - get the convicts to do stuff that is worthwhile, but with nobody doing it because of transaction costs etc. But how do you reliably determine which these area are?
I'm almost forced to the conclusion that the only socially just work to which one can put convicts is work that is "wasted" in a sense. Letting them dig holes and fill them up again. I like to think such labour would make someone think twice about doing more crime, but there's also a pointlessness to it that offends me. We also couldn't force convicts to work, as that's proscribed by the bill of rights. I wonder if it would work if the labour were voluntary - 40% off now if you dig holes!
Interesting idea, but I see David Cameron recently had to back-track on the idea of discounted sentences for people who pleaded guilty early in proceedings against them. What are the chances "society" would renege on the deal?
Participation is voluntary.
Alcocks Electrical Services | Alcocks Pest Control & Entomological Services | Alcocks Hygiene Services
Justice must prevail
Again I had a nice long post typed out and just deleted it… The truth is, in order to kill criminals you need an infallible system, secondly you would need an infrastructure that will consist of highly paid individuals schooled in law. Once the system is working then yes why not judge and execute those who did harm to others?
The truth is genocide will inevitably follow, because retribution knows no restriction. In some old world countries people are still stoned to death, burned alive there executions so violent that the fear of the pain and anguish stops criminals to act.
However to torture a criminal is barbaric and basically pointless because as the churches of old has proven to us, if you inflict enough pain any person will confess to any crime. They will do so in hope that the suffering will end.
I say rather remove the problem…
Crime functions on the fundamental or greed, lust and enslavement via drugs, torture and fear. By removing these elements crime will no longer have function.
If crime can no longer provide the criminal with his/her needs then the act itself will no longer be committed.
peace is a state of mind
Disclaimer: everything written by me can be considered as fictional.
Come on guys and dolls......please give us a better response to this poll that 26 votes from +- 8000 members !
Martin Coetzee
Supplier of Stainless Steel Band and Buckle and various fastening systems. Steel, Plastic, Galvanized, PET and Poly woven.
We solve your fastening problems.
www.straptite.com
You may never know what results will come from your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results... Rudy Malan † 05/03/2011
casualties of war,innocent people will get unfair punishment to,dont be held back by the fact that innocent people might get convicted to death penalty because they innocent,sacrifices must be made,if it takes one innocent persons life to apply death penalty to even just 100 i say go,even if its my own family,if my brother or father or whoever gets wrongfully accused and gets death penalty u know what thats just one of those things,would u rather have 1 or 2 situations like this than to not have them at all and all this shit with rapes etc etc etc is happening,at the end of the day this is a world where we wanna feel more safe and not have this happen,how many women and children ouit there have been raped,how is that any different to death,there will allways be casualties of war,so YES to death penalty...
I don’t think that we should give criminals the death penalty, although I strongly feel that they forfeit their 'Human Rights' if they take a right away from somebody else. But how do you quantify and punish that?
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.