Should Criminals be Intentionally Blinded Instead of Incarcerated in Prison?
The cost of incarcerating one convicted criminal is over $30,000 per year and this is a very low-ball estimate. There is very little rehabilitation going on in prison today. Blinding a criminal for the same length of time that he or she would be incarcerated is a medically-possible method of essentially "incarcerating" them. The criminal's family would be responsible for taking care of the criminal during their period of "incarceration". If the criminal is normally responsible for him or herself then they would have to continue to take care of him or herself. They would be eligible for government benefits during their period of punishment, which would still be less than the cost of imprisoning them!
Being intentionally blinded would significantly hamper (and, in a way, incarcerate a person). Medical doctors would detach the retina in a simple operation that would cost a fraction of what it costs to incarcerate a single criminal for a year. At the end of the criminal's sentence, the retina would be re-attached. The cost of these surgeries would be covered by the incredible savings realized from not imprisoning the person.
Of course, there are arguments against this form of punishment. The most obvious one is it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment. However, isn't at least some of what happens in prison cruel and unusual? Perhaps, convicted criminals could select themselves into this form of punishment versus going to prison(?). Just one possible solution to this objection.
Intentionally Blind Criminals
Side Score: 1
|
 |
Do Not Intentionally Blind
Side Score: 4
Winning Side! |
|
|
|
|
1
point
|
To not intentionally blind prisoners is the same as intentionally blinding them. This is cruel and unusual punishment which therefore violates the 8th ammendment. When you blind them and they are released back to society, how are they supposed to work and assemiliate when they are blind. And remember that when prisoners are released back to society, they do serve a benefit, because they work and pay their taxes which go towards the development of this country and to maintain the ecomony. It is easier to say something than to do it. Blinding prisoners unintentionally is the same as blinding them intentionally because when you are punishing them, you know that the outcome of the punishment will be blindness. This will not serve any good but make matters worse, cause a blow to the ecomony and end up in various law suits against the government for violation of constitutional and human rights. Side: Do Not Intentionally Blind
You already have stated my biggest objection; it is "cruel and unusual punishment". Your solution of prisoners being willing to do it doesn't make it any less cruel or unusual in my opinion, thus I would say this would be unconstitutional and the United States federal government should abide by the constitution and not implement such measures concerning criminals. Side: Do Not Intentionally Blind
HECK NO! They will NOT know what they are touching (and not know where the toilet is). Example: They might be slicing an apple, BUT he needs to go to the refiregerator( im not sure thats right whatever) but he heads out the DOOR. 5 minutes later they're walking around town with a KNIFE. Side: Do Not Intentionally Blind
|
