Capital Punishment/life Sentence Alternative: Pic

Marik_SteeleMarik_Steele To rule in hell... Join Date: 2002-11-20 Member: 9466Members
edited March 2005 in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">"Permanent" induced coma</div> Anyone who's listened to all of ilovebees knows I'm not the one who came up with this idea.

Consider this: for cases of people accused of extreme crimes, life sentences and the death penalty both have pros and cons. One is considered more expensive than the other due to maintenance. One allows for the release of the convicted person if they are proven not guilty years later. The list for both goes on, but I'll skip to the idea brought forth for this thread:

PIC, "Permanent" induced coma.

Rather than the death sentence (example: by lethal injection), imagine having convicted persons put in a medically-induced coma. They'd be sentenced to lie in bed, unconscious and with the appropriate life support equipment, until the end of their life (or whenever they were proven not guilty, whichever came first).

The goal of this is to make a compromise between the death penalty and life sentence. Reduce maintenance costs of facilities (cafeteria, workout room, showers, laundromat, etc), reduce cost of employees from guards and others to just supervising doctors (+ smaller contingent of guards to prevent break-<i>ins</i>), and still have the ability to wake up inmates who are proven not guilty later.

Discuss.

Comments

  • TommyVercettiTommyVercetti Join Date: 2003-02-10 Member: 13390Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    Cryogenics FTW. This way they just kind of... die.
  • RenegadeRenegade Old school Join Date: 2002-03-29 Member: 361Members
    Sounds good. Only problem is I don't think we have the technology to accomplish this yet. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  • VerthandiVerthandi Join Date: 2002-12-12 Member: 10687Members, NS1 Playtester
    Wouldn't extended periods of inactivity cause muscle ability to deteriorate?

    Also, imagine waking up 20 years from now, without knowing what happened in the last two decades. How would that feel?
  • Marik_SteeleMarik_Steele To rule in hell... Join Date: 2002-11-20 Member: 9466Members
    edited March 2005
    <!--QuoteBegin-Verthandi+Mar 19 2005, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Verthandi @ Mar 19 2005, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wouldn't extended periods of inactivity cause muscle ability to deteriorate?

    Also, imagine waking up 20 years from now, without knowing what happened in the last two decades.  How would that feel? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    To the first sentence: curiously enough, this question reminds me of a part of a recent computer game where the player character is a prisoner. I'll have to put the following in spoiler tags, as it is by definition at 2/3 through the game:
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:#031D1F'>Towards the end of the Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay, Riddick is placed in the 3rd level of inprisonment, intended to be impossible to escape: cryosleep.  When the player is put in this situation, they experience repeated short segments where the screen fades in, and they are in a small, cylindrical room.  A voice over the intercom says things like "This is your mandatory daily two minute exercise period.  Under <whatever fictional legal decision> it is your right and your only right..."  [edit]Needless to say, he does escape this to continue escaping the prison and moving on to the events of both movies.  But until the player finds a way (because none of this is a cutscene), the segments fade in and out, supposedly being a different day each time.</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Regular excercise periods could alleviate the muscle deterioration problem, but requires better technology to safely bring inmates in/out of consciousness safely on such a regular basis. It would likely also increase the need for security personell.
    But I do see a good reason for it....it's worth thinking about, for sure.

    To the 2nd sentence: how would it feel? Under a no-regular-exercise system, the only ones being woken up would be those found not guilty later; I'd likely be glad I hadn't spent that time under a 'life" sentence being bored 24/7, and I'd most definitely be happy I'd been put under PIC instead of being flat-out killed. As for learning about the world, I'd feel really angry/sad I'd missed out on so much, and also very curious and excited to learn what I'd missed.
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Join Date: 2003-08-27 Member: 20284Members
    I would imagine this would end up as more expensive through the machinery to keep track of all the signals of every single person condemned to PIC, as well as intraveneous fluid intake and all that happy stuff that drains many families' money already. Probably the best case scenario is you'd break even with current costs.
  • CommunistWithAGunCommunistWithAGun Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Marik Steele+Mar 18 2005, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marik Steele @ Mar 18 2005, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anyone who's listened to all of ilovebees knows I'm not the one who came up with this idea.

    Consider this: for cases of people accused of extreme crimes, life sentences and the death penalty both have pros and cons. One is considered more expensive than the other due to maintenance. One allows for the release of the convicted person if they are proven not guilty years later. The list for both goes on, but I'll skip to the idea brought forth for this thread:

    PIC, "Permanent" induced coma.

    Rather than the death sentence (example: by lethal injection), imagine having convicted persons put in a medically-induced coma. They'd be sentenced to lie in bed, unconscious and with the appropriate life support equipment, until the end of their life (or whenever they were proven not guilty, whichever came first).

    The goal of this is to make a compromise between the death penalty and life sentence. Reduce maintenance costs of facilities (cafeteria, workout room, showers, laundromat, etc), reduce cost of employees from guards and others to just supervising doctors (+ smaller contingent of guards to prevent break-<i>ins</i>), and still have the ability to wake up inmates who are proven not guilty later.

    Discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I'm totally against the death penalty but not because of the killing. I think if you are proven guilty of a really heinous crime that you should sit in a little cell with nothing more than a toilet and basic essentials to live, so that you can think about what you did that got you there and suffer the agony of guilt. To me, death is an escape for them.
  • Cold_NiTeCold_NiTe Join Date: 2003-09-15 Member: 20875Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Mar 19 2005, 01:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Mar 19 2005, 01:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marik Steele+Mar 18 2005, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marik Steele @ Mar 18 2005, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anyone who's listened to all of ilovebees knows I'm not the one who came up with this idea.

    Consider this: for cases of people accused of extreme crimes, life sentences and the death penalty both have pros and cons.  One is considered more expensive than the other due to maintenance.  One allows for the release of the convicted person if they are proven not guilty years later.  The list for both goes on, but I'll skip to the idea brought forth for this thread:

    PIC, "Permanent" induced coma.

    Rather than the death sentence (example: by lethal injection), imagine having convicted persons put in a medically-induced coma.  They'd be sentenced to lie in bed, unconscious and with the appropriate life support equipment, until the end of their life (or whenever they were proven not guilty, whichever came first).

    The goal of this is to make a compromise between the death penalty and life sentence.  Reduce maintenance costs of facilities (cafeteria, workout room, showers, laundromat, etc), reduce cost of employees from guards and others to just supervising doctors (+ smaller contingent of guards to prevent break-<i>ins</i>), and still have the ability to wake up inmates who are proven not guilty later.

    Discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I'm totally against the death penalty but not because of the killing. I think if you are proven guilty of a really heinous crime that you should sit in a little cell with nothing more than a toilet and basic essentials to live, so that you can think about what you did that got you there and suffer the agony of guilt. To me, death is an escape for them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    That's assuming they have an conscience. Most people who commit a crime which warrants the death penalty don't really have one, at least not one they can't totally ignore.
  • AposApos Join Date: 2003-06-14 Member: 17369Members, Constellation
    There is no legitimacy to exacting retribution. It's pointless, and it harms the one exacting it. Murderers and other criminals should lose their ability to interact with outside soceity to protect the rest of us, but that's all.
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Join Date: 2003-08-27 Member: 20284Members
    I don't see the death penalty as retribution, I see it as the defense of society. When one has commited such a heinous act as to warrant death, they have chosen to not only exclude themselves from society, but also to become an enemy to the well being of those around him/her and to act against the ideal of society as a whole. In this case the death penalty isn't retribution, it's an act of war against those who try and undermine the security of the state.
  • AposApos Join Date: 2003-06-14 Member: 17369Members, Constellation
    A captured, convicted murderer is not in a state of war against a nation anymore than a P.O.W. is. The threat is already over. Either your purpose is to exclude them from society, or it is to exact pointless vengence. For the former, prison does just fine. For the latter, its morally abhorrent.
  • CommunistWithAGunCommunistWithAGun Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
    Whatever is cheaper for the state works for me. A bullet costs only a few dollars....
  • torquetorque Join Date: 2003-08-20 Member: 20035Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
    Apos: Not necessarily - morals are subjective.

    Our society has developed in such a fashion that some of the population feels that the death penalty needs to exist and be carried out so often - it becomes an item on the news, politicians make stands on it, etc. - and for victims, it's said to sometimes bring closure (and sometimes not).

    CWAG: I'm not sure it's the suffering of guilt that's always an issue. For some, they are either suffering and they don't understand/care why, while the other aspects of the punishment is that they lose years of their lives, live in a poor environment, and emerge from their sentence with not only a moral stain (which makes it hard to find jobs, find a mate, whatever) but loss of real-world survival skills and contact with loved ones, if any.

    While I haven't been in prison and I don't know what it's like, I wonder what the prisoners would say, given the alternatives - "You can either experience life in jail, or life as a vegetable." I think some people might say it's better to live the jail life - because it's a life (exercise, social interaction, food, etc), poor though it may be - and some people would say "I'd rather be unconscious so I don't have to go through the jail experience."
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Join Date: 2003-08-27 Member: 20284Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Mar 19 2005, 06:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Mar 19 2005, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A captured, convicted murderer is not in a state of war against a nation anymore than a P.O.W. is. The threat is already over. Either your purpose is to exclude them from society, or it is to exact pointless vengence. For the former, prison does just fine. For the latter, its morally abhorrent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The threat is gone temporarily, but the burden still exists and the danger to society is still in existence, without purpose. Ideally, the death penalty removes both of these downsides. Admittedly, the way death row works now it costs just as much money as normal prison, but a more efficient manner of this would be better for the people as a whloe than permanent imprisonment or permanent comas.
  • AposApos Join Date: 2003-06-14 Member: 17369Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and for victims, it's said to sometimes bring closure<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Which is simply using someone else's life as a means to an end: exactly what we purport to condemn when murderers kill. It's just unbelievably silly to pretend that acting like a killer somehow makes the original killing okay.
  • AposApos Join Date: 2003-06-14 Member: 17369Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Mar 19 2005, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Mar 19 2005, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Mar 19 2005, 06:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Mar 19 2005, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A captured, convicted murderer is not in a state of war against a nation anymore than a P.O.W. is.  The threat is already over.  Either your purpose is to exclude them from society, or it is to exact pointless vengence.  For the former, prison does just fine.  For the latter, its morally abhorrent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The threat is gone temporarily, but the burden still exists and the danger to society is still in existence, without purpose. Ideally, the death penalty removes both of these downsides. Admittedly, the way death row works now it costs just as much money as normal prison, but a more efficient manner of this would be better for the people as a whloe than permanent imprisonment or permanent comas. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The price of maintaining the prisoner is simply the price of maintaining a prison system, and one well worth paying to protect society from criminals.
  • Cold_NiTeCold_NiTe Join Date: 2003-09-15 Member: 20875Members
    Isn't this just the classic Deterrant vs. Discipline arguement? Whether it's more effective to make prison so scary that people obey the laws so they dont have to go there or whether it's better to take law breakers into the system and rehabilitate them on the belief that they are capable of becoming productive members of society again?
  • SaltzBadSaltzBad Join Date: 2004-02-23 Member: 26833Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Mar 19 2005, 10:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Mar 19 2005, 10:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Mar 19 2005, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Mar 19 2005, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Mar 19 2005, 06:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Mar 19 2005, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A captured, convicted murderer is not in a state of war against a nation anymore than a P.O.W. is.  The threat is already over.  Either your purpose is to exclude them from society, or it is to exact pointless vengence.  For the former, prison does just fine.  For the latter, its morally abhorrent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The threat is gone temporarily, but the burden still exists and the danger to society is still in existence, without purpose. Ideally, the death penalty removes both of these downsides. Admittedly, the way death row works now it costs just as much money as normal prison, but a more efficient manner of this would be better for the people as a whloe than permanent imprisonment or permanent comas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The price of maintaining the prisoner is simply the price of maintaining a prison system, and one well worth paying to protect society from criminals. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    That doesn't mean we should pay in excess - infact, you could probably agree that if a significantly more efficient and morally responsible way of cutting costs could be found, we could allocate those same funds to prevention instead of detention. Either by investing in police and the judicial branch, or god forbid education <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  • GrendelGrendel All that is fear... Join Date: 2002-07-19 Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
    I love the concept that executing people is somehow going to do anything but reduce the value of human life.

    It doesn't matter whether you are putting someone to sleep or killing them, the principle is still retarded. Rehabilitation is what people need, not punishment.
  • RenegadeRenegade Old school Join Date: 2002-03-29 Member: 361Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 20 2005, 04:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 20 2005, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I love the concept that executing people is somehow going to do anything but reduce the value of human life.

    It doesn't matter whether you are putting someone to sleep or killing them, the principle is still retarded. Rehabilitation is what people need, not punishment. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Unfortunately, there are some who simply can't be rehabilitated.
  • SandstormSandstorm Join Date: 2003-09-25 Member: 21205Members
    The death penalty is only given if everyone on the Jury believes the person cannot be rehabilitated. It is not meant as a deterent, but as a way to prevent dangerous criminals from doing any more harm to society. PIC could be a good middle ground between life in prison and the death penalty.

    Your opinion on the death penalty may also reveal your general opinion of your own death. Some people would prefer to live an eternity in a jail cell, but I'm not one of them. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Join Date: 2003-08-27 Member: 20284Members
    edited March 2005
    <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 20 2005, 07:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 20 2005, 07:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I love the concept that executing people is somehow going to do anything but reduce the value of human life.

    It doesn't matter whether you are putting someone to sleep or killing them, the principle is still retarded. Rehabilitation is what people need, not punishment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Rehabilitation makes the (huge) assumption that:
    a) The criminal was acting irrationally, and
    b) They <i>want</i> to be rehabilitated.

    Both of which are mass generalizations, and both of which are more often than not wrong. You can't "rehabilitate" someone who was acting with a clear mind while commiting the act, because there's nothing in their mind that you can fix. If they were acting without thought it may be possible, but then they would have plead insanity and chances are wouldn't have been put in jail immediately.

    To add onto this, you cant quantify rehabilitation compared to just plain old punishment, and this would annihilate the idea of "jury of peers". Any average person can look at what someone's done and through that estimate a just punishment, but no one can look at a murder and say "what that man needs is a strict regiment of blah blah blah twice a week for the next 10 years in order to make him a better member of society". You can't expect your normal juror to have that knowledge of human psychology.

    What all that means is trials would eventually be presided over by a comittee of psychologists instead of peers, which would end all notions of fair trial we have right now.

    Also, the "cruel and unusual punishment" laws would immediately be kicked out of the window, because there is nothing to define "cruel and unusual rehabilitation". This would mean that the judicial system would be able to use <i>any means necessary</i> to "rehabilitate" criminals.

    Does this all sit right with you? Because this sounds a hell of a lot more like a moral violation than any death penalty or life imprisonment.
  • Cold_NiTeCold_NiTe Join Date: 2003-09-15 Member: 20875Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Renegade+Mar 21 2005, 04:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade @ Mar 21 2005, 04:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 20 2005, 04:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 20 2005, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I love the concept that executing people is somehow going to do anything but reduce the value of human life.

    It doesn't matter whether you are putting someone to sleep or killing them, the principle is still retarded. Rehabilitation is what people need, not punishment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Unfortunately, there are some who simply can't be rehabilitated. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I agree. There are those that no amount of psychological help will save, and the only option is either a strong deterrant and an end all consequence.
  • BulletHeadBulletHead Join Date: 2004-07-22 Member: 30049Members
    I say throw em in a room... let em get fleas and ticks, and die whenever disease gets to em... THAT is how you deal with people that say, kill 5 people in cold blood with a dull butter knife.
  • CplDavisCplDavis I hunt the arctic Snonos Join Date: 2003-01-09 Member: 12097Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Mar 19 2005, 07:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Mar 19 2005, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Whatever is cheaper for the state works for me. A bullet costs only a few dollars.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    A few cents actually,

    anyways, this whole idea reminds me of what they did to murdurers in Minority Report.
    Basically same thing, put people in coma etc.


    I dont think this would ever pass at least not any time in our life times.
  • wankalotwankalot Join Date: 2005-02-05 Member: 39872Members
    there are 2 reasons the death penalty is wrong
    1.possibility of innocence
    2.the value of human life

    at the moment it costs more to have someone executed rather than put in prison for a lifetime... so jail seems to make more economic sense neway...

    btw.. I HARDLY think that an induced coma would be more economically viable than putting sum1 in orison for life. Think about it... life support equipment, including respirators, dialysis machines etc. can cost thousands A DAY to keep running.

    Besides the whole idea is filled with morality issues. Sure u r not killing the guy but u are definately damaging his body... some of which may be irreversible. IF the person has been convicted of a crime he did not commit and then is awakened with disabilities, he has been severely punished for a crime he did not commit.
Sign In or Register to comment.