CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think that's giving them to many options... The point of prison is to 'mentally' torture you for your wrong-doings. Given that life-sentences are usually issued for extreme measures--rape, murder, etc.--then I would suggest an easy way out is too lenient.
The point of prison is to 'mentally' torture you for your wrong-doings.
I certainly disagree with that philosophy. The primary goals of prison should be rehabilitation and prevention of further crime. Those who cannot be rehabilitated can fulfill the second by taking themselves completely out of the equation. Although I do not support capitol punishment, I do support the right to suicide. This is the "cleanest" way to allow them the ultimate punishment for their crimes.
There's actually more subtle purposes for prisons, but all have an impact on your mental state negatively, although, it may cause positive actions (I.e. negative reinforcement).
I may have exaggerated with the word "torture" but the intention is still primal to your mental state.
I'll be glad to substantiate my claims with psychology sources; I just hope you can see the correlation so I don't need to.
Although it is worth clarifying that "punishment" and "negative reinforcement" are not synonymous, for the sake of this discussion I'm willing to call the differences academic.
It has been demonstrated repeatedly that while negative reinforcement can have powerful results initially, it suffers from diminishing returns. It changes actions, not full behavior patterns as positive reinforcement does. The near complete application of negative reinforcement and punishment in our prison systems may serve as a good reason why our recidivism rates trend so high in this country, would it not?
However, in my opinion, most people would agree that it's there to keep unlawful citizens removed from a lawful society, under the pretense that they would otherwise interfere with our society's ability to function.
I just wanted to point out that I think torture is the wrong term. Torture is unlawful in the USA isn't it? Any prison system with the EU that tortures, mentally or otherwise, would be unlawful. The punishment of being in prison is the deprivation of liberty: that your life stops for a time.
Yes torture is unlawful. The problem is that torture is a fuzzy term so that many things done could be considered torturous to many people while not technically being torture by law. Solitary confinement may be one example.
Well I think if we admit that something is torture then we should consider it illegal. I don't believe torture has a special meaning in law - it is the intentional infliction of severe suffering. I suppose though we could say that often people use the word 'torture' in a melodramatic way.
Solitary confinement may be one example.
If solitary confinement includes sensory deprivation and not being able to communicate with anyone whatsoever then it is torture according the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. I think it is certainly up for discussion whether other forms of solitary confinement are torturous.
You are stating that the point of prison is to "mentally torture" those who have been wrongdoing. That strikes me as almost immoral.
I would argue that in the case of violent people who remain a risk top the general population the purpose is to protect others. If such a prisoner decides to end their life, why not? For one thing it is extremely expensive to keep people in prison although that should not be the determining factor.
We are treading on the euthanasia debate here and that has both advocates and protractors.
The way I see it, whether an individual has a terminal illness or a life of incarceration, then the decision should be unto them to decide at what point in time the quality of their life no longer exists.
Some people have the resilience to survive hardship no matter what presents itself in their lives , some do not and would end their lives rather than a daily battle with continual suffering.
I believe it is our inalienable human right that we should have choice, if not the alternative is suicide and our society in its blindness has made that illegal.
We must constantly ask ourselves and those who make our laws - who's life is it anyway.....?
Well put. I agree that we are dealing with something that has wider implications. I assume that in this case we can ignore the usual objection to euthanasia - that a relative or other beneficiary would benefit from the death. However, we would have to protect against pressure being applied by the authorities.
However, from my perspective as a Christian and the way I interpret my religion, I would have to say no.
The way I see it, life in prison offers the possibility to repent, no matter what the crime is. Providing the option of suicide would remove this opportunity for some individuals (if one is accepting the idea of ending one's life as sinful, and I would [in this circumstance.])
Then again, I am somewhat on the fence about the death sentence in general. Its a complicated issue.
Surprisingly, I think this is the first comment to be against the suicide option on religious grounds. Why is it that the option to take ones life removes the option repent? They still have time to do that before they die, just like they always did.
Some interpretations of the bible count suicide as one of the ultimate sins (as life is one of the most important gifts.) Personally, I think its situational, but wishing to kill oneself to avoid life in prison would count as an example for me. Perhaps they would be able to repent in purgatory, but who knows? Shrug
It just seems like attempting to escape one's punishment in that manner would result in a worse punishment later on. Someone guilty of a terrible crime repenting and living out their sentence seems more legitimate to me. But that's just my opinion. Of course, that's what its all about here!
I wasn't necessarily saying that that should be the reason for the law, just that that was the basis for my opinion (i.e., the reason that I, personally, disagree with it, not the reasoning behind the law.)
Actually, you know what, I've just made up my mind. I'm against the death penalty, despite thinking that some individuals might deserve it.
As for the reasoning behind the law, there has been evidence that the death penalty, in some cases, is more expensive than life without parole. Also, GenericName's point about accidental death sentencing of innocents seems legitimate.
BTW, for some reason it keeps changing my "side" to yes, but my answer is still no. I've only been on this site a few weeks, so I'm not sure why it's doing that.
It matters if you are clarifying, disputing, or supporting. Try not to be too hung up on points. People will read what you type and know what side your on.
Yeah, I mean they are still people. I know this will sound heartless but it would save money as we wouldn't have to pay for that person's food, and stuff.
They should have the option of take their life for what they have done or suffer.. despite them choosing death being weak it gives them an option that both end with punishment and safety for the public.
There really isn't a point in life when you're just sitting the rest of your days in prison. So go ahead at let them save us thousands of tax payer dollars.
I suggest you do some research on this topic. It does not cost money to kill them, it costs money to go through the legal process of putting them to death. The appeals process for a death penalty prisoner costs a very large amount of money, which is necessary, because otherwise if an individual is innocent, they would not have a means of proving so.
Oh I agree with you there. The OP made a clarification that I am guessing you did not see (it is pretty buried by this point) that he meant should the death penalty be open as a possibility while sentencing.
Yes, I mean if prisoners want to choose to just die rather than spending their entire life in torture behind bars, they can. Basically this would be like a suicide option instead of the death penalty.
It would be imposed. The penalty would be either life in prison or death. There is an option AND it is imposed by the legal system. This is the idea of the debate anyway. There's no reason to exclude other perspectives on the same idea.
Not sure what you mean by "suicide with dignity" in this context, but if it involves a lethal injection, you may be in line with the debate topic.
No, I meant an option that the prisoner themself could choose. Like if they were sentenced to life in prison, they could then choose to opt for the death penalty.
I personally STRONGLY oppose the death penalty as a punishment, as it has been used against innocent individuals, which is the ultimate failing of any legal system.
In a perfect world where we knew with zero doubt that an individual who was found guilty was actually guilty, then I would not be against the death penalty. Alas that perfect world is not achievable.
If there is a chance that a prison sentence will make someone change their ways, that's one thing. If there isn't - and we are postulating that to be the case - then the main reason, surely, is to protect the general public from a dangerous person. It seems you want revenge rather that. Is that really a civilised approach to this subject?
I would say no! My reasoning is that we currently don't support suicide for anyone. People do it, but we do not condone it. We also do not support assisted suicide. So why would we give a "right" to someone who deserves fewer rights based on their actions? I definitely say no.
Actually, two states do support "Death with Dignity" for terminal patients at least. An argument could be made that life without parole is a sort of "terminal" status.
We also don't support putting anyone else to death. We support saving and maintianing lives, except for those on death row. Life in prison is often the alternative to death row. These differences raise the question of suicide. Not that they get a benefit that others don't, but that they get a choice between terrible alternatives.
The point of life in prison is to spend the rest of your dreadful life rotting in a prison cell, reflecting on your wrongdoings. By giving prisoners the option to off themselves when they feel like grants them the choice to get away with the crime that they committed, thus warding off the punishment that they deserve to fulfill. I know if I were sentenced to life in prison for a horrific crime, such as murder, I would probably choose to kill myself to escape my punishment. But justice wouldn't be served. We can't let people get away with their crimes.
While I would normally support the death penalty, I would not want to give it to them if that was what they actually wanted. They need to be made to suffer, not given the easy way out.
Genetic evidence for a mass murder that was done in a crowded public setting and was caught on the spot with many cameras watching. This would put the assurance of the criminal act above even absurd doubt. Maybe the standard for the death penalty should be "beyond absurd doubt".
And would the cameras have to be of a resolution where a clear, indisputable image can be obtained? In that case, I would at least admit the chance of executing an innocent individual is nullified. I still oppose the death penalty on principled grounds, but that would take away my primary reason for opposition.
They have to pay for their crimes. Say, a man killed seven innocent children. He should pay for what he has done in prison. I'm not for torture, but I think they should live in guilt. Some people aren't afraid of death. They should get a prison sentence and then we, the people, will feel better. Sorry if I suk. Ima newb.
