I still think its a good idea. . A 391 points 14 hours ago" (last edited t hour ago) we 11190) t Slavery as punishment. Rather than paying for people who commit I still think its a good idea A 391 points 14 hours ago" (last edited t hour ago) we 11190) Slavery as punishment Rather than paying for people who commit
Upload
Login or register

I still think its a good idea

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
A 391 points 14 hours ago" (last edited t hour ago) we 11190)
t Slavery as punishment. Rather than paying for people who commit major crimes (rape, murder, eta], to sit and do
nothing for the rest of their lives, make them a productive part of society and put them to don' t see why
not
source report give gold reply hide child comments
lor, points 13 hours ago ()
t Because then we' d have a bunch of black slaves again.
source parent report give gold reply
...
+1531
Views: 53251 Submitted: 02/02/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (199)
[ 199 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#11 - shmooo
Reply +201 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
the 13th amendment of the constitution of the united states explains that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction". so in the U.S. all prisoners are technically slaves to the states and thus forcing them to work and be productive is totally leagal
User avatar #77 to #11 - supertanto
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
although you could counter argue it as being cruel and unusual punishment depending on the task(s)
User avatar #109 to #77 - rawrbowwow
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
That has absolutely nothing to do with this.
#58 to #11 - Kelevra
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#124 to #11 - imgood
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
They can't force you to work as you in yourself have full rights to your own body. But they can really really hint at it. Also that jsut makes the states look like communism/facism and nobody wants that (remember the Gulag?).
#150 to #11 - thefiddler
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#38 to #11 - pandaonaveranda
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Isn't community service just slave labour?
User avatar #41 to #38 - nought
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
holy **** you must be an excellent member of your community
#184 to #41 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Well if he means the forced community service that courts will sometimes order than he's not wrong.
#53 to #38 - elaxx
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Depends on what do u qualify as slave labor. Community service still holds humane conditions for work.
User avatar #179 to #53 - cabbagemayhem
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Under no circumstances do conditions have to be inhumane for it to qualify as slavery.
#185 to #53 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Salve labor just means you work against your will, that's the legal definition.
User avatar #43 to #38 - dawdawdwa
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Not if you`re a volunteer.
User avatar #55 to #11 - thesinful
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Chain gangs. Picking up trash on the highway and ****
User avatar #104 to #11 - partnerintroll
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
and ongoing
#18 - bitchesbanthymine
Reply +73 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I'm going to list my problems with this post in ascending order of importance:   
1- If forced labor was the primary punishment then criminals would have no reason to do it efficiently.   
2- Pretty much everyone would complain that it takes potential jobs away from law-abiding people.   
3- The primary purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation, followed by protection of society. Punishment is tertiary at best.
I'm going to list my problems with this post in ascending order of importance:
1- If forced labor was the primary punishment then criminals would have no reason to do it efficiently.
2- Pretty much everyone would complain that it takes potential jobs away from law-abiding people.
3- The primary purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation, followed by protection of society. Punishment is tertiary at best.
User avatar #23 to #18 - gemleonn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
1) Not doing proficiently, or up to their abilities, in their labor could resort in any number of things, including less pay (if they get payed, which I'm sure they would), less food, or maybe made a target for any who have to make up fore there slack
2) Yeah, that's probably true, but since prisons are government funded, they could be used to do physical labor that other companies would do, but can't due to not enough money and not enough workers.
3) That's implying hard work doesn't give a sense of self worth, and generally doesn't make you a more respectable and better citizen. Busting your ass, working through the heat of the day makes you value the little things more. It's a punishment, it pays their debts to society by making it better, and it might make them better citizens.
User avatar #24 to #23 - bitchesbanthymine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
1- Even if you restrict privileges in those who don't work hard enough, they have to be kept healthy or it's cruel/unusual punishment, so there's still a point where they can not work at all.
3- If that were true then people wouldn't re-offend after community service, whereas in fact here in the UK they're trying to phase it out because it isn't working.
User avatar #59 to #18 - Kelevra
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
The problem comes from enforcing the labor. If you force a prisoner to work, how do you guarantee quality or work or that they will actually do it? What do you threaten him with, more prison time that we'll pay for? Do we give incentives through wages? (to be fair, many prisoners get paid doing labor, but they type they do doesn't garner much and it's hard to defend the need for higher wages when all of your other amenities are paid for) If so, they can be potentially subject to FLSA, which could give them wages they would earn on the outside of prison. Can't beat them, that's cruel and unusual punishment which violates the 8th amendment. You still have to feed them, clothe them and provide all of the other amenities they get in prison. By the way, somethings in the U.S are made from prisons. My mattresses in my dorm were. Look up UNICOR. The problem is the money doesn't go to society or some business that needs more workers, it goes straight to the federal government. UNICOR is also a profit black hole. They don't make enough to sustain themselves so the government actually ends up donating about 3 billion to them. So the Government pays for the workers livelihood, makes textiles that it can only sell to itself or agencies that receive federal funding, don't make enough profit to support the program, and then use more tax payer money to sustain the program. Point being, it's easy to look at one amendment and not think about the rest of the ramifications of your decision.
#164 to #18 - killerdeath
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
For at least the first problem, I think the exploding neck collars from fallout, or one piece would be good enough incentive.
#188 to #18 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Well actually in the US the primary purpose of prison is punitive...we do just aim to punish really. Its been slowly changing as we see the higher success rates of other countries prisons, but it's a hefty system to change over night.
User avatar #56 to #18 - wellimnotsure
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
1-getting thrown in solitary, or a good smack to the back of the head
2-Picking trash up on the side of the road, or running a prison farm takes jobs from no one
3-That is a lie by a bunch of liberals. The purpose of prison is imprisonment. To separate dangerous people from the people they victimize
#122 to #18 - morskoj
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
We're not doing the third one very ******* well anyway so why bother at this point?
User avatar #134 to #18 - hellsjester
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
oh wow .... rehabilitation. your funny i work at a prison and if they do anything they make people worse. some of them do change, but most see it as a badge of honor to goto prison. chain gangs did jobs that no one else would do like help farmers or dig out trenches for flood season. not to mention most of these chain gang facilities would make them grown their own food so that they would know the value of what goes into a meal. most of them had sayings like if your crops don't grow you don't eat. so not only are they way to busy to go around just randomly shanking people because they looked at them weird. they are also learning values of freedom and learning good work ethics. if they don't then they suffer the consequences no food no clothes and no drink. it's as simple as that.
#193 to #134 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I'm actually pretty tight with the criminal justice majors at my college. I'm guessing you're in the US like me, but in many other parts of the world the prison systems are geared towards rehabilitation and it's becoming a sort of shame for people to go to prison.

What you called a "badge of honor" for inmates is actually one of the biggest flaws with prison, it's considered a sign of toughness and all other manner of things. Take that away and turn it into a daycare system that nurtures and rehabilitates people and suddenly you've got a lot less thugs taking risks to land themselves in pussyville.
User avatar #70 to #18 - demigodofmadness
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
1. There are always incentives, whether someone is in prison or not.
2. Have them help farmers who normally would do the work alone or community service
3. Teaching someone the value of an honest days work would definitely be rehabilitating
#101 - tonyxx
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
We did try to use use convicts for construction contracts, but since you don't have to pay convicts, their labor was much cheaper. As a result, alot of construction workers lost their jobs, which is why we don't do it any longer.
#170 to #101 - childofnephilim
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
User avatar #178 to #101 - twofreegerbils
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I would gamble that people being paid to work would do a better job than people who aren't being paid to work, but forced.

Just a gamble, but god do I hope I'm right.
#17 - testaburger
+14 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #27 to #17 - settlwlvs
Reply -11 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Spanked children turn into good citizens while kids who are not punished turn into snobby assholes.

Explain that.
#29 to #27 - testaburger
+3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #102 to #29 - thatoneiranianguy
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
There's tons of snobby ass holes in these countries, just like there are in every country.

Not saying I agree with his spanking beliefs, but seriously, get over yourself.
User avatar #110 to #102 - settlwlvs
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I believe in a mix of spanking, time-outs, and positive reinforcement when a child is good. Using one without the other is ineffective, and in my opinion stupid. I am firmly against abuse or hitting a kid anywhere except a moderate swat on the butt, but parents who don't discipline their kids at all piss me off.
#117 to #29 - anon id: 372c1c23
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
>Scandinavians
>Not snobby assholes

Seriously the only ones i know of are all pretentious jerks whenever a post comes up about "muh denmark"
User avatar #31 to #29 - settlwlvs
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Notice though that those countries (excluding scandanavian ones) tend to be less privileged. They don't have as many opportunities for kids to be spoiled because the parents don't have the income to let them sit in their room all day playing games and having mom serve as their maid. Kids work around the house, help the family with the business, or do other character-building tasks. In america kids get spoiled easily because this isn't typically the case, so the fact that people aren't allowed to spank kids in those areas is completely unrelated.
User avatar #33 to #31 - settlwlvs
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Even if the income of the typical family in those countries doesn't dictate that kids working is required, the culture does. Have you ever met a spoiled american farmboy? No, because those people were raised with a different ideal than city folk.
User avatar #94 to #51 - settlwlvs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I disagree with these studies. I was spanked as a child whenever time-outs didn't work, and turned out great. My parents were raised on a mix of spankings and time-outs, as were their parents, and so on. None of my behavior or depression issues started until I was in middle school and got bullied for being overweight and a nerd. Even then, the combination of negative reinforcement for bad behavior and positive reinforcement for good behavior meant that I fully understood the consequences of my actions, so I never lashed out. I've never been arrested, and have only had detention once (for refusing to write a 2 page essay in 7th grade on why I was tardy for class). I've watched my family members grow up, and those where were not properly punished turned out to be spoiled brats, while my cousin's child -who was appropriately punished and rewarded as needed- turned out to be a fantastic guy.

From the time that I was born to the age of 17, I grew up with therapeutic foster care kids (my parents have been in the TFC program over 20 years taking in over 30 kids in that period). I've seen the difference between kids who were punished too harshly, never punished at all, or grew up in the system without anyone to properly raise them. My entire childhood was learning first-hand how to raise children and teenagers, so I believe I have a stronger understanding on how things work than a person who has read 'studies' on the internet.
#196 to #94 - testaburger
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #197 to #196 - settlwlvs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Studies also show that drugs and car parts are completely safe, then they get recalled less than a year later for killing or seriously injuring people. I think years of experience and first-hand knowledge far outweigh 6 months of circumstantial observation.
User avatar #176 to #94 - anonymoose
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
So, because one person (you) didn't end up a criminal, clearly spanking must be good.
User avatar #46 to #27 - saturated
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Because there are no other factors into raising a child other than spanking and not spanking

throw down a little evidence to back up your argument instead of just spewing your own opinion like it's fact
User avatar #84 to #46 - settlwlvs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
typically parents who spank -and I mean strictly on the bottom, not hard enough to really hurt- their children tend to also continue to punish their kids as they grow up with time-outs and grounding when they get older. There are a lot of parents these days that deem punishment to be mean, and so their children don't get negative reinforcement for bad behavior. I strongly believe that positive reinforcement for good behavior works a hundred times better, but never showing that there are negative consequences lets the kid assume they can get away with anything.
#116 to #84 - testaburger
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #103 to #84 - saturated
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Even a dog knows when it's done something wrong with no need to teach that behavior, kids are not so stupid to not realize that their actions have consequences -this is not something that needs to be taught. The problem is when the child learns that he/she can manipulate their parents to get whatever they want, and has nothing to do with spanking/not spanking


User avatar #105 to #103 - settlwlvs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Again, I highly disagree. Dogs have to be trained to not pee on the carpet or chew on furniture. There isn't a single dog in the world that automatically just understands that they cannot do these things. Assuming that all animals and people are born with the knowledge of right and wrong is plain ignorance, especially when society's idea of the difference is constantly changing. Everyone is taught what they are and are not allowed to do through training and life experiences. Not once have I ever met a toddler that has never hit another kid because he/ she already knew not to do that, or a pet that potty trained its self (except for a cat, but they always use the bathroom in the same place, so you simply place their poop in the sandbox, and they eventually get the picture).
User avatar #114 to #27 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
You're poor, were skanked as a child and need an excuse to feel good about it.
User avatar #52 to #27 - burnswhenipee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
My brother was spanked repeatedly, now he's a druggie low-life
I've never been hit once and well...I'm doing pretty good so far.

Hitting children doesn't automatically make them better people
User avatar #82 to #52 - settlwlvs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
spanking does not mean abusing. Hitting a child hard enough to leave a mark or hitting them anywhere besides the bottom is child abuse, and tends to create children with either anger or depression problems.
User avatar #61 to #52 - loonquawl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I don't think getting spanked makes you a bad person either. Maybe you weren't spanked while he was because he was a dick and you weren't?
#19 to #17 - anon id: 411ccd8d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Yeah you go ahead and rehabilitate all the serial killers and rapists out there and tell me how well it goes when they reoffend two hours after being released. Some people cannot be helped.
#22 to #19 - testaburger
+11 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#20 to #17 - anon id: cd484c9c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Are suggesting that criminals gain their freedom after we deem them *stable*? That's a pile of crud.
#47 to #17 - anon id: 59aef2b5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
that is a load of ********. im gonna assume that you are a european. are you so arrogant to assume that a system that works in your culture would be the same in america. some people simply need to die. just a few years ago, a man who had been " rehabilitated" raped and murdered three young women. something that could have been avoided had he just been killed in the first place. You say rehabilitating people will reduce the number of repeat offenders, im pretty sure the chances of them committing the crime is less if they are ******* dead.(major crimes of course). i would prefer dead criminals to more victims, even if you can reduce the number of repeat offenders it sill happens.
User avatar #123 to #47 - xxdremisterxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I agree with your point that serious offenders like rapists and murderers definitely deserve to be put to death. Especially repeat offenders. They lost their rights as human beings when they violated the rights of others and their crimes should be considered crimes against humanity, because thats exactly what they are taking away from their victims. Rehabilitation should only be an option for those who committed a non serious crime because it could just a misunderstood person or troubled individual.
User avatar #108 to #47 - settlwlvs
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I disagree with the whole killing point, but I do believe that our jail system in America does NOT work. Free food, healthcare, TV, gym membership, and vices such as cigarettes and porn isn't a bad life. They are treated like teenagers who are grounded instead of dangerous criminals. Hell, there have even been cases of people robbing banks for $1 just to get extended sentences simply because jail life was **better* than the outside world. I think all jails should move to the system that one Arizona sheriff designed, which not only properly punished criminals, but also saves the state over $100,000 a year. He put them in all pink outfits, made them sleep outside in tents, fed them the cheapest meals possible, and limited them to one hour of Disney channel a day. Jail was designed to be an incentive to not commit crime, so we as a society don't need to treat criminals like guests.
User avatar #45 - pleuradispensor
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
so we become North Korea?
User avatar #113 to #45 - flippytrixfordiner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
what's wrong with that north korea is best korea
#66 to #45 - newsuperyoshi
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I've had this for a while, but never decided to use it until now.
#172 to #66 - childofnephilim
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I like the **** out of this picture. I am making it my desktop and there is nothing you can do about it.
#106 - anon id: e97ca375
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
...Don't prisoners have a bad habit of, you know, being lazy *****?
User avatar #154 to #106 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Everyone has a habit of being a lazy **** until you you let them feel the wrong end of a cattle prod.
#112 to #106 - implication
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Most of the guys in prison are lifting 24/7.
User avatar #171 to #112 - childofnephilim
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
In part because there is nothing else to do.
#119 - yuukoku
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
>Executing them will make the hippies piss themselves.   
>Keeping them in prison costs too much for everyone.   
>Putting them to work pisses off unions because it costs them jobs.   
   
Which one here is cheaper?   
   
I'm only saying that the prison system was never a huge problem when they'd just take them out back and hang them for killing a bunch of kids or shooting up a crowd of people. It works in Texas where if you kill someone in the middle of intentionally committing a felony, you get the lethal D in your arm. They put down insane dogs, you know. Why not people? If they or other people think they're insane, then they should get them help before it's too late.   
   
Expecting tons of criticism. By all means, put in your thoughts.
>Executing them will make the hippies piss themselves.
>Keeping them in prison costs too much for everyone.
>Putting them to work pisses off unions because it costs them jobs.

Which one here is cheaper?

I'm only saying that the prison system was never a huge problem when they'd just take them out back and hang them for killing a bunch of kids or shooting up a crowd of people. It works in Texas where if you kill someone in the middle of intentionally committing a felony, you get the lethal D in your arm. They put down insane dogs, you know. Why not people? If they or other people think they're insane, then they should get them help before it's too late.

Expecting tons of criticism. By all means, put in your thoughts.
#126 to #119 - xxdremisterxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I would only consider such serious punishment as the death sentence for grave crimes such as murderers and rapists and maybe very serious assault ( must be repeat though ). I understand the hippie mentality and other humanists about taking lives and such and that all life is sacred, but murders and scum that take away the life and liberties of their victims without any remorse sicken me and really dont deserve any kind of rehabilitation because they are fully aware of their actions and such should pay for the full extent of it. Due unto others the way you would like to be treated is a phrase that pertains to my thoughts exactly.
I would only consider such serious punishment as the death sentence for grave crimes such as murderers and rapists and maybe very serious assault ( must be repeat though ). I understand the hippie mentality and other humanists about taking lives and such and that all life is sacred, but murders and scum that take away the life and liberties of their victims without any remorse sicken me and really dont deserve any kind of rehabilitation because they are fully aware of their actions and such should pay for the full extent of it. Due unto others the way you would like to be treated is a phrase that pertains to my thoughts exactly.
User avatar #146 to #119 - wthree
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
If you think someone deserves to die, by all means go and kill them.

But it's not for the state to decide who lives and who dies. The state (should) aide in the punishment and rehabilitation of criminals, in an effect to reduce crime and protect the people. The state is not a tool to exact personal vengeance.
User avatar #182 to #119 - negativeone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
To be honest, I think that we should find alternative ways of punishment for criminals instead, it'd be cheaper and we could have individuals that committed different crimes have to serve in different ways.
User avatar #152 to #119 - Crusader
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Recreate the Colosseum.

Criminals are put in, and every week, or few days you have a night full of thieves and drug dealers fighting, then once a month you have the murderers and the contenders from the weekly bouts face off Gladiator style.

But if you do this, you have to go full hog and get sponsorships.
Imagine some dude who got caught soliciting a hooker with a meat cleaver wearing a pepsi mask facing off against "no-name" the off-brand mob enforcer on a metal grate above the coals of a long stoked fire.
User avatar #198 to #152 - yuukoku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
You know that they fed criminals to the lions for blood. Seriously, crowds wanted blood and it was easy for them to do that, so they fed pickpockets and thieves to them. Obviously those crimes aren't applicable to such punishment these days.

To top it off, the gladiators wouldn't usually kill each other. The person hosting the match would call for the death of the loser, and this only really happened during big performances that weren't going too well (i.e. the lions didn't fight and the crowd was getting bored). Usually, gladiators were given armor and weapons that were mainly for show. They didn't really fight to kill, it was all for show, but they could kill each other and the stakes were pretty high for all of them considering they could earn their freedom and three losses could mean that they get sent back into labor camps making bricks.

Apparently, they even had clubs where they'd all pitch in a portion of their salary together to help support the families of fallen gladiators, pay for funerals, and generally come together in a kind of fraternity. It was a lot like sports is for us today. Really good athletes can make tons of money while they ****** ones can **** off.
#125 to #119 - kingpongthedon
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Problem with the death penalty is you can't undo a wrongful conviction. The general population, myself included, feels that it shouldn't be left up to a flawed legal system run by people, with all their flaws and limitations, to determine the life and death of another person. Nobody wants that blood on their hands, at least nobody not deserving of the death penalty themselves. Building on that, the legal costs associated with sufficiently proving somebody worthy of the death penalty to both a jury of their peers and the community as a whole are much more than the cost of life imprisonment. Furthermore, the death penalty has proven to be an ineffective deterrent for crime. In fact, states without the death penalty typically have lower crime rates, especially violent crime though I don't think that this is a direct connection, perhaps a reflection of the culture they were raised in, but not that not having the death penalty somehow deters people from crime .

That being said, I personally believe that there are absolutely cases worthy of the death penalty. Hell, there are some cases I'd buy tickets to the execution.
User avatar #128 to #125 - yuukoku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Let's agree that when someone admits to the crime or when there's enough evidence (i.e. video, many witnesses with the exact same story, piles of undeniable evidence), they should be convicted of the crime. If there was any doubt, then I wouldn't put them to the firing squad, but if they obviously did it without any real reasonable motive besides money or some kind of pleasure, I'd put them down to save time. An eye for an eye may make the world blind, but it damn sure keeps the crazies out of the way.
#132 to #128 - kingpongthedon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Yeah, again, I agree that there are definitely cases where it's a fitting punishment but the economic/time aspect of it just isn't a solid argument. The cases where it is straightforward enough to get the death penalty are just too few and far between for it to be a viable option. If there were enough cases where it was applicable, the cost of getting it done would go down significantly, but as it stands, it's a lot easier and cheaper to just let them die slowly in the hell-hole that is prison. To the outsider it's essentially the same thing as execution, the criminal is permanently removed from society, unless they are later found to be deserving of freedom or escape, but that's not common enough to be taken into serious consideration . If you're into the vengeance/punishment aspect, hell isn't a certainty but prison sure is. I'd personally rather be executed than go through a long-term prison sentence.

TLDR: Life in prison is cheaper, easier, and accomplishes the same thing as execution. Plus, it has a number of other advantages that execution does not have to offer.
User avatar #127 to #125 - xxdremisterxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
They need to just immediately put down those who have committed serious felonies like murder or rape only if they have priors. (i.e. Repeat Offenders ) because the wrongfully accused does not apply if they have already committed a murder or rape. I am pretty sure their are those in prison now who are repeat offenders such as those, but they only get 25 to life? AND might even get out on GOOD behavior? SO not only did they commit murder and destroy the lives of innocent people, they also get to get out and live freely for doing so. :/ LOL what a load of bs.
#120 to #119 - lordgeneral
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
that entire rant
#85 - DrollHumor
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
I don't recall where I heard the idea, but I like the thought of throwing condemned criminals into boot camp and after training, sending them overseas.  Let them be the cannon fodder.    
   
People who enlist normally get the chance to ascend the military ranks as usual and may become officers. The criminals, if they so choose to stay in the military after their sentence has been fulfilled, may ascend no higher than Drill Sergeant. That way no innocent person is in charge of the newest, and therefore, most dangerous "recruits".  The criminal Drill Sergeant will of course be someone who has been rehabilitated and passed tests to prove they are trustworthy enough to be in charge of the Privates.   
   
Prison life is a ******* cakewalk in comparison to boot camp, and combat makes gang shoot outs look like nerf battles.   
I guarantee no one who survives their sentence  is going to do anything violent ever again.    
   
Sincerely, an Army Brat.
I don't recall where I heard the idea, but I like the thought of throwing condemned criminals into boot camp and after training, sending them overseas. Let them be the cannon fodder.

People who enlist normally get the chance to ascend the military ranks as usual and may become officers. The criminals, if they so choose to stay in the military after their sentence has been fulfilled, may ascend no higher than Drill Sergeant. That way no innocent person is in charge of the newest, and therefore, most dangerous "recruits". The criminal Drill Sergeant will of course be someone who has been rehabilitated and passed tests to prove they are trustworthy enough to be in charge of the Privates.

Prison life is a ******* cakewalk in comparison to boot camp, and combat makes gang shoot outs look like nerf battles.
I guarantee no one who survives their sentence is going to do anything violent ever again.

Sincerely, an Army Brat.
User avatar #88 to #85 - jackknapp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
These are criminals, so I hardly think they'd follow orders ever, and they could do something very detrimental to their allies well being.
User avatar #100 to #88 - DrollHumor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Their allies are other criminals, so they can do no more harm than the enemy could to a normal platoon. Besides, they'd never leave boot camp if they don't follow orders, so they couldn't go berserk on the battlefield.

It'd never happen in reality, but it's a nice thought.
#181 to #85 - donfailed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Wasn't this the whole thing with the Terrans from Starcraft?
User avatar #89 to #85 - Spavaloo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Then you're giving large groups of hardened criminals combat training and a legitimate reason to dislike the government they're fighting under- right before you hand them assault rifles and grenades.
User avatar #91 to #89 - DrollHumor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
That's why you don't hand them the weapons until after they're trained.
If they want to be defiant then they can spend their entire sentence in boot camp. People get whipped in bootcamp. Literally.
User avatar #92 to #91 - Spavaloo
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
You don't think people can feign obedience long enough to get to a warzone and be equipped?
User avatar #96 to #92 - DrollHumor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Probably not. Boot camp takes years. But if by some staggering feat of patience/insanity a criminal were to go along with it until he received his arms then the only people on the ground around him are the enemy and other criminals. There'd be no mixing the normally enlisted and the condemned. So they could only do so much damage. If they were to turn on their own on the battlefield, they could just be left there, as cannon fodder.

But it's just a nice idea, highly improbable if not impossible. It'd make a cool movie.
User avatar #121 to #85 - paperbackdmitri
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Well like many people have been saying the primary problem with forcing them do fight is that since it's not of their free will they simply won't fight. Most of our soldiers have made the decision to join the army for whatever cause they seem fit and have a reason to fight. That's what makes them true soldiers. You could train a man his entire life to fight but if he doesn't want to fight then all that training was for nothing. Furthermore history has shown that an army full of men who have a reason to fight in much better than an army full of slaves (prisoners) given some training and weapons.

tl;dr Good soldiers have personal reasons to fight, slaves or prisoners do not make good soldiers
#90 to #85 - thegrandexemplar
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
yeah, but then the army would become like The Wall in asoif. It'd be pretty solid for a little while, but eventual good people would just stop joining, and it would be full of criminals and asshats.
User avatar #93 to #90 - DrollHumor
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
When my dad was deployed, an explosion blew in the windows of the building he was in. Had it not been for the metal blinds, he would have died. I'd much rather have some criminal asshat die than my dad.

But, it's just an idea. Much easier said than done.
User avatar #98 to #85 - thatoneiranianguy
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
The military used to do this, and I believe they still do. Just not en masse.
#107 to #85 - pxthreezerothree
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Something tells me they would lack unit cohesion...
User avatar #62 - fuzzywuzz
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Thats actually what slavery originally was, either to pay off a debt monetarily to a family or because you did them wrong.
User avatar #71 to #62 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
or because your country attacked their country, and their country won, even though you were just chilling at your farm.
#74 to #62 - anon id: d3ab20e8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
That's not slavery. That's indentured servitude.
User avatar #65 to #62 - newsuperyoshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Also, it was temporary and ended with the enslaved individual.
#1 - FatherPedobear
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Leave it to the 8th amendment to take away all the fun punishments.
User avatar #2 to #1 - lotengo [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
In my country we dont have amendments.

What does the 8th one mean?
#3 to #2 - FatherPedobear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Elimination of "Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Like shaming, painful, depressing. Stuff like that.
User avatar #10 to #3 - nanako
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
i don't get what's wrong with unusual, non-cruel punishments.
User avatar #4 to #3 - sinery
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
That pretty much sums up punishment though.
#5 to #4 - FatherPedobear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
You don't have to tell me that.
User avatar #6 to #5 - sinery
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Never mind, carry on.
#7 to #6 - FatherPedobear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
That about sums it up. In my state for example, a sheriff tried to get prisoners in a certain area to wear pink underwear for embarrassment. Of course people got butt hurt.
#8 to #7 - sinery
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Of course.
Of course.
#9 to #8 - FatherPedobear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
That particular sheriff, Joe Arpaio, gets a lot of controversial stories, because he's somewhat bigoted against Mexicans. Enough so that there are officers in some areas who have to carry cameras with them at all times so they can be monitored for discrimination.