|
on the left posted:Say we locked up Hitler and allowed him to keep writing from jail. Wouldn't it be a big problem if he was basically able to paint himself as a political prisoner and build another following while in prison? That's true, and in such a case I don't think he should be allowed to publish writings from jail. The Norwegians have Breivik in prison, and I don't think he should be allowed to publish any manifestos from jail, although he should be allowed to stay in contact with his family and legal representation. Even after someone has committed horrific crimes, I don't think it does any good for the world to treat them badly. Humane Norwegian prisons have a lower recidivism rate than the harsh American prisons or incredibly brutal Brazilian prisons. So even from a practical standpoint, compassionate treatment of monstrous criminals seems to make them less likely to harm more people in the future, and makes things better for wrongly convicted innocent people. From a purely moral standpoint, even if good treatment had no impact on rehabilitation, I'd argue that prisoners deserve good treatment. Revenge doesn't do anything to help the victims, and once a prisoner is securely jailed, any harshness is only a form of revenge. There's a natural and understandable impulse to kill murderers and let child molesters get raped, but even the worst criminal is still a human who deserves dignity. The state proves it is better than a criminal by taking away their freedom, but not their dignity. Also, no justice system is perfect, so there will always be some innocent people in prison. But that argument only matters to someone who thinks the guilty are beyond any compassion; I think that even if someone is certainly guilty, they should be treated as well as possible with the resources available and to ensure they won't escape. The practical upshot that this leads to lower recidivism rates is another reason to go with the moral argument. Typical Pubbie posted:I can speculate that people who commit mass murder for one stated misanthropic reason or another are fundamentally different from you and I and should be treated as such. I believe human life is precious which is why these people should be permanently separated from society with no chance of release until such a time that science has progressed to the point that we can verifiably cure them of their condition. That's not really what the thread is about. I agree that dangerous mass murderers should be locked up forever. The question is, should they be treated humanely and with compassion, or is it acceptable to let them suffer?
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:51 |
|