Does wanting to punish the criminal more mean you care more about the victims?

.

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • No

    Votes: 9 81.8%
  • Total voters
    11
It does not. However, Supermax would not be a form of punishment in my argument. While it is punitive, it is the only way to assure that the criminals of the most heinous of crimes no longer associate with society in any way. They do not deserve such associations, they have shown that they are incapable of using them responsibly. It is for the good of society that I recommend such action.
 
Watermark said:
Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Of course yes, because by punishing him more you are keeping the criminal in jail longer, which means they have to wait longer to get out and threaten the victim's well being (ie: reoffending, vengeance, threats, etc...). You care more about the victim's well being and peace of mind.

It's not like the criminal is getting twenty lashes or something, they are just kept longer in holding with less chance of reharming their victim.
Sounds great.
 
Recividism is higher the longer the prison sentence, unless you keep them in there until they're like 70 or something.

So should we just keep anyone who ever did anything ever in prison until they're dead or very old? Since all of them come back and attack the same person afterwards, it seems pretty foolhardy to let them out at all. Why don't you care about the victims Dano?
 
Yes and no, although I clicked no. I think it's a combination of justice (for the victim) and punishment. Most of the time, we focus on the punishment, more than the justice aspect, which is what had me leaning towards no. Either way works though.
 
Watermark said:
Recividism is higher the longer the prison sentence, unless you keep them in there until they're like 70 or something.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's true, stats please.
You hear gang members and such mocking the small sentences they get and they don't sound like they've been taught a lesson.
Also areas with weaker sentences by judges have higher recidivism rates (ie: Detroit, LA), so it's not concrete evidence, it leans to thinking that larger sentences yield better results.

Watermark said:
So should we just keep anyone who ever did anything ever in prison until they're dead or very old? Since all of them come back and attack the same person afterwards, it seems pretty foolhardy to let them out at all. Why don't you care about the victims Dano?
Click to expand...
For sexual offenses and murder, they should stay until they are old.
 
Far and away the best thing that can be done with jails is to immediately sell off any exercise equipment and weights. How much sense does it make to fund rapists to pump weights so they are pumped up when they get out of prison?
What a stupid use of money...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top