astroman wrote:
we've had someone from our southern neighbour country filling that vision with life - or death if you prefer - some 60 years ago...
with the exact same arguments...
Sorry, I but do not agree with that.
I somehow agree on the subject (and I don't consider democracy a successfull model...), but it's only a small step and that ice is very thin
I hear what you're saying but I think that there's a case for saying that people are currently being treated far worse with a more negative overall effect on society as a punishment for their crimes.
Take a sex offender as an example, whose offense was against a young person. There is a very strong feeling against these people in Britain at the moment - there was even a case of a paedeotrician's house being attacked & burned down because people are too stupid and ignorant to find out that there's a difference between that and a paedophile!
Under the current system, that person would lose their liberty for many, many years - i.e. they would be incarcerated. Let's say for 20 years. They would serve little to no good for society inside jail - they would merely suffer. They'd probably be beaten and raped themselves, especially if it was discovered what their offense was. They wouldn't get 'better' - their sanity would deteriorate. And all this at enormous expense to the tax payer. When they finally get released, they are 'ghetto-ised' - tight 'communities' of sex offenders (so society can 'keep tabs' on them). Their address becomes fairly open public knowledge - they are marked for life. They are also quite liekly to re-offend - this has happened on many occasions.
I can't see anything positve at all in our 'modern' society's approach to this type of problem. It seems that it's better to:
waste and ruin another person's life
contribute nothing positive back to society
perpetuate violence and neurosis
waste loads of money
than it is to castrate somebody. "Oh no, we couldn't possibly do that! That wouldn't be moral..."
Under my 'system', there would be one simple bold action and no retribution. After that, the person can be put safely back into society and make a contribution. They will always have the weight of their own conscience as their personal punishment - and at the end of the day I think that's punishment enough - why lock them up just to rot? Is that really better?
I'm not pretending that these issues are simple, or cut-and-dried, but I think that there's a danger of creating a worse situation by turning your back on things than confronting them directly.
Royston
Sir