OK, I don't understand then--what IS a deterrent then? Nick, I thought that retribution DID contribute to a crime decrease in California?
Obviously, our system is not working currently. Though there IS a decrease in crime, still, I don't think it is enough. I don't think it's fair that so many criminals that have killed many/raped, whatever, are allowed mostly to spend their life in prison...with access to many priviledges such as card games, TV, food, family visits, teleophone calls, etc.
Why the hell (pardon me) do they get these priviledges (even though they must earn theese priviledges first) when they have done something so unhuman, brutal?
I don't think the death penalty is used enough...if it was, maybe criminals would be less likely to commit crimes if they knew for sure that the gas chamber/electric chair would be waiting for them. Instead, the majority of criminals get access to exercise, TV, etc. when they truly don't deserve it. And also bail, parole, and the possibility (though rare) of escape from prison.
I'm not saying that ppl who stole cars, dealt drugs, etc. should get the death penalty--I mean those who killed should also be killed.
I understand that some criminals DO change, and after therapy/religion they become a changed person. But most don't...and they get out of prison, commit the same crimes, end up in prison yet AGAIN, and cost us even more money...
Sorry if I don't make any sense...I'm kinda tired. Also, I learned some facts from my Soc class about the high cost of keeping these criminals in the prisons--and it was shocking. Some crazy percentage is zapped from our taxes. But I don't have the numbers on me right now, and also, I'm not a Soc major...this is from a class that I just finished taking in HS.
[This message has been edited by newbie (edited June 07, 2001).]
|
Hybrid Mode
