[spank86]

Does anyone here support rehabilitative models of criminal justice?

In theory.

[Rama Set]

Does anyone here support rehabilitative models of criminal justice?

In theory.

What practical issues don't you support?

[spank86]

Does anyone here support rehabilitative models of criminal justice?

In theory.

What practical issues don't you support?

the difficulty of determining if someone is actually rehabilitated.

Look at Jon Venables, that's not an example of rehabilitation working.

[Tau]

Does anyone here support rehabilitative models of criminal justice?

Absolutely. I support such models 100%. The criminal themself is irrelevant, in my opinion. What matters is that society is effected most minimally by crime, particularly violent crime.

However, the position that the criminal is irrelevant does lead to situations where the death penalty is appropriate, as mentioned previously.

[Pete Svarrior]

Absolutely. I support such models 100%. The criminal themself is irrelevant, in my opinion.

These two sentences directly contradict one another. You cannot "support 100%" a model that focuses all its attention on the criminal and simultaneously claim that the criminal is irrelevant. Like with your previous claims, the problem here is lack of consistency. You are welcome to dislike it all you want, but self-contradictory claims do not take a sophisticated debate to dispute.

Does anyone here support rehabilitative models of criminal justice?

Sure. The human mind can be shaped in essentially any way, although with obviously varying results. Generally speaking, it's always worth a try.

[DDDDAts all folks]

Does anyone here support rehabilitative models of criminal justice?

I do, and I think being punished is part of that rehabilitation.

[Tau]

Absolutely. I support such models 100%. The criminal themself is irrelevant, in my opinion.

These two sentences directly contradict one another. You cannot "support 100%" a model that focuses all its attention on the criminal and simultaneously claim that the criminal is irrelevant. Like with your previous claims, the problem here is lack of consistency. You are welcome to dislike it all you want, but self-contradictory claims do not take a sophisticated debate to dispute.

They are not in any way contradictory. What matters is what is best for society. The criminal is irrelevant. If throwing them all in a penal colony in Siberia was determined to be the best for society, I'd be all for that. However, as far as we can tell rehabilitative models are the best for society as a whole, so that's what we should do.

[Pete Svarrior]

However, as far as we can tell rehabilitative models are the best for society as a whole, so that's what we should do.

Another contradiction. You say rehabilitative models are the best for society, and yet you firmly stand behind the American system. I'm starting to think you're trying to waste our time here.

[Shane]

I'm also curious why the guy who actually killed her got a lighter sentence

[Saddam Hussein]

He told them what they wanted to hear, so they cut his sentence.

[Shane]

Kill a woman, implicate a cute American girl cause why not, get sentenced to less than the innocent cute American girl. Gg Italy

[DuckDodgers]

I read that one of the judges who overturned her innocent verdict is going to be investigated connected to that overturning.  I'll try to find the link to the article when I get home in a few hours.

[EnigmaZV]

No, of course. As I said, I'm not talking about the kind of case that currently gives the death penalty is America. I'm talking about situations where, for example, a person has been deeply involved with human trafficking for years and was caught red handed. Someone who made their living off of selling children off to be sex slaves. You can't rehabilitate such a person, and their debt to society is nigh on infinite. So we have two options. Either we give life in prison or we kill them. The right of such a person to live is frankly not a significant factor in my opinion, considering the crime. So it comes down to utilitarianism, and life in prison is expensive.

Since death for this person is almost a certainty, I guess the rational response to being caught is to leave no witnesses. That doesn't sound like a system I would endorse.

[Tau]

However, as far as we can tell rehabilitative models are the best for society as a whole, so that's what we should do.

Another contradiction. You say rehabilitative models are the best for society, and yet you firmly stand behind the American system. I'm starting to think you're trying to waste our time here.

I do? When did I say I stood behind the American system? I support our double jeopardy laws, but that's not what we're discussing right now.

No, of course. As I said, I'm not talking about the kind of case that currently gives the death penalty is America. I'm talking about situations where, for example, a person has been deeply involved with human trafficking for years and was caught red handed. Someone who made their living off of selling children off to be sex slaves. You can't rehabilitate such a person, and their debt to society is nigh on infinite. So we have two options. Either we give life in prison or we kill them. The right of such a person to live is frankly not a significant factor in my opinion, considering the crime. So it comes down to utilitarianism, and life in prison is expensive.

Since death for this person is almost a certainty, I guess the rational response to being caught is to leave no witnesses. That doesn't sound like a system I would endorse.

I suppose that's a valid concern. Kind of. I'm not really sure what to think of it, honestly.

EDIT: what Saddam said. The death penalty hasn't been shown to actually influence criminal's behavior in any way.

[Saddam Hussein]

No, of course. As I said, I'm not talking about the kind of case that currently gives the death penalty is America. I'm talking about situations where, for example, a person has been deeply involved with human trafficking for years and was caught red handed. Someone who made their living off of selling children off to be sex slaves. You can't rehabilitate such a person, and their debt to society is nigh on infinite. So we have two options. Either we give life in prison or we kill them. The right of such a person to live is frankly not a significant factor in my opinion, considering the crime. So it comes down to utilitarianism, and life in prison is expensive.

Since death for this person is almost a certainty, I guess the rational response to being caught is to leave no witnesses. That doesn't sound like a system I would endorse.

If the criminal has no issue with killing, then the "rational response" would be to leave no witnesses even if they were only facing life in prison.  The death penalty does not give criminals pause.  It never has, and it never will.

[DuckDodgers]

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/24622850/italian-justice-ministry-investigating-knox-judge

It isn't the original source of the story about the Italian judge, but it has the information.  It's an investigation into comments he made to reporters following the verdict reading and (as commented by the article)"The newspapers quoted Florence judge Alessandro Nencini as saying, among other things, that Sollecito's decision not to testify on the witness stand deprived the defendant of a voice."

[spank86]

EDIT: what Saddam said. The death penalty hasn't been shown to actually influence criminal's behavior in any way.

from what I remember it HAS been shown to influence a juries behaviour, in states where there's a mandatory death sentence for certain crimes juries are less likely to convict for those crimes.

[Tau]

EDIT: what Saddam said. The death penalty hasn't been shown to actually influence criminal's behavior in any way.

from what I remember it HAS been shown to influence a juries behaviour, in states where there's a mandatory death sentence for certain crimes juries are less likely to convict for those crimes.

I suspect that in the type of situation I'm talking about, this wouldn't be a problem.

[spank86]

EDIT: what Saddam said. The death penalty hasn't been shown to actually influence criminal's behavior in any way.

from what I remember it HAS been shown to influence a juries behaviour, in states where there's a mandatory death sentence for certain crimes juries are less likely to convict for those crimes.

I suspect that in the type of situation I'm talking about, this wouldn't be a problem.

What would you do if you believed all life is sacred and any killing is wrong (and that two wrongs don't make a right).

Let the guy go free or be directly responsible for his execution...

It's an issue, although I'm not sure if there's an option to get out of jury duty in those states if you don't feel you could ever support the death penalty.

[Alchemist21]

EDIT: what Saddam said. The death penalty hasn't been shown to actually influence criminal's behavior in any way.

from what I remember it HAS been shown to influence a juries behaviour, in states where there's a mandatory death sentence for certain crimes juries are less likely to convict for those crimes.

I suspect that in the type of situation I'm talking about, this wouldn't be a problem.

What would you do if you believed all life is sacred and any killing is wrong (and that two wrongs don't make a right).

Let the guy go free or be directly responsible for his execution...

It's an issue, although I'm not sure if there's an option to get out of jury duty in those states if you don't feel you could ever support the death penalty.

I'm sure they would release you from jury duty if that were the case.  Even if they don't, you can still vote not guilty and force a hung jury so they have to get new jurors (seems like perverting the legal system I know, but it is a last resort option).