New punishment idea

[klubbhead024]

So, fellow libertarians, I propose an idea. I think that there should be a law that if a person commits the same crime 3 times (i.e. stealing a car) that they should be put to death. Obviously they are of no use to society, and why waste money keeping them alive knowing that if they ever get out, they will just do it again?
Any thoughts?

 

[RevOxley_501]

<kicks three dogs



thats called criminal suicide

 

[Gentoo]

Is that just for felonies, or including misdemeanors too?

 

[Valjean]

What if the car thief is beneficial to society but suffers from a car-focused kleptomania?
Should this apply to all crimes -- littering? Jaywalking? Illegal U-turns?
Should this apply to individuals who could be rehabilitated if the effort were made?

If we're going to adopt draconian measures, have you considered corrective maiming as a somewhat less severe correction? A car thief with no hands or no legs might be rendered incapable of pursuing his customary criminal activity but still capable of contributing to society or supporting his family in some manner.

Perhaps we could take social parasites and force them to contribute to society by enslaving them for various periods and setting them to public works projects, the military, or some such useful tasks.

 

[Ody]

Any thoughts?

Kill a kid for stealing a candy bar three times... wth. Thats wrong.

 

[McBell]

As long as they put it on pay-per-view..

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, fellow libertarians, I propose an idea. I think that there should be a law that if a person commits the same crime 3 times (i.e. stealing a car) that they should be put to death. Obviously they are of no use to society, and why waste money keeping them alive knowing that if they ever get out, they will just do it again?
Any thoughts?

What if these crimes do not harm anyone in society, or are small petty crimes, such as speeding? Seems harsh if someone is put to death for smoking his third joint, going 5 miles over the speed limit for the third time because he is late for work, or someone with anger managment problem gets into a third fight because he can't afford meds.

 

[Wandered Off]

...why waste money keeping them alive knowing that if they ever get out, they will just do it again?

Kind of a tangent here, but there's an "un-Libertarian" implied assumption here (I could be wrong, sorry if I misread) that society is spending money supporting them in prison. Perhaps a solution for this would be that all prisoners should have to work for their upkeep. If they choose not to and starve, it is their individual choice. That way, society does not waste money keeping them alive unproductively, and they can choose on their own whether to work - just as they would in the 'outside world'. Libertarians favor reducing government handouts in free society, and that should extend to incarcerated society as well.

This doesn't address the recividism issue raised in the OP, but I thought it worth mentioning.

 

[darkpenguin]

foot in mouth much? Yes they are a waste of money but who the hell has the right to kill another person really? (george bush aside of course because his world policing allows just that.) maybe if some of these people re-offend then the larger problem should be really looked at insted of just throwing them in jail, maybe they don't have the education needed to get along in society and find a decent job, maybe they had crappy parenting, until the larger picture is looked at (which it never is) then they will keep re-offending. Of course there are a handfull of crimes that i do take exception to but even those shouldn't be punishable by death.

 

[klubbhead024]

What if these crimes do not harm anyone in society, or are small petty crimes, such as speeding? Seems harsh if someone is put to death for smoking his third joint, going 5 miles over the speed limit for the third time because he is late for work, or someone with anger managment problem gets into a third fight because he can't afford meds.

Well, being a libertarian I don't believe in drug laws, or speeding laws. The crimes that I am talking about are crimes that affect others(Stealing a car, robbery, fraud, etc) Victimless crimes shouldn't even be on the books as it is!

 

[klubbhead024]

foot in mouth much? Yes they are a waste of money but who the hell has the right to kill another person really? (george bush aside of course because his world policing allows just that.) maybe if some of these people re-offend then the larger problem should be really looked at insted of just throwing them in jail, maybe they don't have the education needed to get along in society and find a decent job, maybe they had crappy parenting, until the larger picture is looked at (which it never is) then they will keep re-offending. Of course there are a handfull of crimes that i do take exception to but even those shouldn't be punishable by death.

Why should we care how their upbringing was??? Many peopel come from a background who were beaten, raped, molested and turned out fine. Products of your enviornment is pure crap... if that were the case I would be a card carrying republican! Now when it comes to murder, rape, or molesting children, screw the 3rd offense, they should be killed on the first offense!!!

 

[McBell]

Well, being a libertarian I don't believe in drug laws, or speeding laws. The crimes that I am talking about are crimes that affect others(Stealing a car, robbery, fraud, etc) Victimless crimes shouldn't even be on the books as it is!

Would you be so kind as to give an example of a "Victimless Crime?"I hear this term all the time and have yet o ask for clarification and an example of a crime that has absolutely no victims.

 

[Gentoo]

Why should we care how their upbringing was??? Many peopel come from a background who were beaten, raped, molested and turned out fine. Products of your enviornment is pure crap... if that were the case I would be a card carrying republican! Now when it comes to murder, rape, or molesting children, screw the 3rd offense, they should be killed on the first offense!!!

Yeah, 'cause those people aren't real people after all, they become their crimes and cease being individuals. [/sarcasm]

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Why should we care how their upbringing was??? Many peopel come from a background who were beaten, raped, molested and turned out fine. Products of your enviornment is pure crap... if that were the case I would be a card carrying republican! Now when it comes to murder, rape, or molesting children, screw the 3rd offense, they should be killed on the first offense!!!

So, if we are not products of our environment, are we then genetically predisposed to be who we are? If that's the case, then we would be killing people based on something they had no control over.

Of course, the argument of free will comes about, but that's in another thread.

The thing is, we should care about the reasons for their criminal behavior if we assume responsibility for their influence on society. The coin has two sides: individuals influence societies, and societies influence individuals. If we wish to remove someone from society because we deem them a negative influence, then it becomes our responsibility to detect where that criminal behavior is coming from and do something productive about it rather than becoming a bunch of paranoid killers ourselves.

 

[jamaesi]

Would you be so kind as to give an example of a "Victimless Crime?"I hear this term all the time and have yet o ask for clarification and an example of a crime that has absolutely no victims.

If I, an adult, were to have a weed plant in my house that I harvested to use recreationally in the privacy of my own home away from others, no more than once or twice a month, who is the victim?

 

[klubbhead024]

Would you be so kind as to give an example of a "Victimless Crime?"I hear this term all the time and have yet o ask for clarification and an example of a crime that has absolutely no victims.

Sure... drug laws, prostitution laws, helmet laws, etc

 

[klubbhead024]

So, if we are not products of our environment, are we then genetically predisposed to be who we are? If that's the case, then we would be killing people based on something they had no control over.

Of course, the argument of free will comes about, but that's in another thread.

The thing is, we should care about the reasons for their criminal behavior if we assume responsibility for their influence on society. The coin has two sides: individuals influence societies, and societies influence individuals. If we wish to remove someone from society because we deem them a negative influence, then it becomes our responsibility to detect where that criminal behavior is coming from and do something productive about it rather than becoming a bunch of paranoid killers ourselves.

People saying they are products of theri evviornment is like saying, "I can do whatever I want cuz my parents hit me" It's garbage! People's actions need to be accounted for no matter WHERE they came from. Bill Gates murdering someone should be the same as some random homeless person murdering someone

 

[Gentoo]

People saying they are products of theri evviornment is like saying, "I can do whatever I want cuz my parents hit me" It's garbage! People's actions need to be accounted for no matter WHERE they came from. Bill Gates murdering someone should be the same as some random homeless person murdering someone

You, my friend, have a lot to learn in empathy.

 

[McBell]

Sure... drug laws, prostitution laws, helmet laws, etc

Interesting definition you must have of 'victim.'

 

[McBell]

If I, an adult, were to have a weed plant in my house that I harvested to use recreationally in the privacy of my own home away from others, no more than once or twice a month, who is the victim?

This is merely one situation and does not encompass the whole realm of 'crime' pertaining to that particular law.