(October 11, 2011 at 7:36 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:Well, one could say the same if a murderer murders another murderer in jail just for murderers. Now what do we call that? A Gladiator pit?(October 11, 2011 at 7:03 pm)Napoleon Wrote:(October 11, 2011 at 6:07 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I have changed my vote to "oppose it" as I no longer see a reason for allowing a government agency, or any agency for that matter, the right to execute people for any reason.
What reason did you have in the first place?
My reason to support it was I didnt like the idea of murderers in jail with non-murderers. If they kill someone in jail, what do they get? Another life sentence?
Abolish the death penalty and ensure that murderers stay away from general population for the duration of their sentence.
Or prison?
It does not matter with whom the murderers stay. It's generally better if the prison system would try to rehabilitate them, rather than to simply isolate them from society, because this is where you actually allow them to become desperate and hopeless, and maybe commit more crimes in prison. But if you give them hope, that they might one day get out of prison, and lead a normal life like anyone else, I'm sure that even murderers will behave, reconsider their misdeeds, and eventually lead a normal life once they get out. As for people who get a life sentence, I think that the life sentence was thought as a method of penance, rather than rehabilitation. If so, people with life sentences should be given a chance to prove themselves within prison walls. They could be trained to act as guides for newcomers, as counsellors for group therapies, and even could work as overseers in prison factories.
Even in a situation like a life sentence, you can give these men a purpose.
But the prison system was not built to actually do this. It exists to simply keep them locked up.
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?