I've already explained this bit too. If it was up to me they would work for their food and board. If they didn't work they wouldn't get fed.
I also wouldn't allow them cigarettes, tv, coffee etc. I'm all for the "hard labour" option for the type of crimes you would advocate the death penalty.
In fact isn't there a state, or a local Sheriff, which does that type of thing. Refuses to give prisoners coffee and supplies only water.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/
It's not for the really dangerous convicts.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
I must agree with you there.
Change the makeup of the penal system absent the death penalty first.
Unfortunately, there will still be those hardest of the hard that won't along and will need a boot to the teeth.
For any of this to work properly, financially or deterrent-wise, it needs proper application.
The fella you are talking about I think is in Arizona, spinningfreemanny brought him up in a post awhile ago and I never forgot it.
That's the fella. Thanks for that.
I'd use his ideas and make the convicts pay their own way. I would make it clear to other potential offenders that's what they could look forward to.
I would also grade the treatment on the offence. So people would get a length of time and a degree of harshness.
I doubt you would be amazed to find out that I am not for coddling convicts (the ones permitted to live) either.
However I can't say that as a deterrent his system works better than any other. I am sure I read somewhere that he was considering extending the "prison" because he was running out of space. Perhaps it does more to deter re offenders than deterring someone from committing an offense in the first place, but then I have no idea how many return and am just guessing that it may because of the type of offender in that program. (minor criminals)
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
It's good revenge but.
To me it's also an acceptable alternative to the death penalty.
It really isn't a choice between killing them or coddling them (not aimed at you). There really must be the "hard labour" option. To me if you kill someone then your human rights (other than life itself) are forfeit. So punish them, make them pay their own way, give them no treats. Trust me a lot of these bastards will ask to be killed after having to live that way for a while.
Or am a I being too "liberal" here.
Bookmarks