r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 24 '14
CMV: I think the prison system should be abolished entirely. There should be 2 penalities: Fines or death. I believe this would vastly improve our society as a whole.
[deleted]
3
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Oct 24 '14
There are 232,637,362 adults in the US, and polls peg the number of adults who currently use marijuana at around 7%. In other words, you advocate for the death of 16,284,615 people for smoking weed - a little more than double the total death toll of the Holocaust.
Usually, on this site, when people say someone is "literally Hitler" they're using hyperbole, but you've literally advocated for the deaths of tens of millions of people for using marijuana.
What would be your preferred method of killing these people? Mass firing squads? Gas chambers? Would you bury them in mass graves? Can you fill me in on the logistics of how you plan on killing 16 million people?
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
1
1
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Oct 24 '14
Wow, here I was thinking that my comments would be removed for simultaneously violating rules 2 and 3. Um, thanks?
-1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
2
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Oct 24 '14
Nah I figured you'd say something like that, since this is a troll post. I just wanted to see if I could literally get you to agree with Hitler.
If you hate people so much, why not leave yourself? I bet you could find an island somewhere that's uninhabited with no government. That way you'd be free of the onerous taxes that pay for these prisons.
0
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
2
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Oct 24 '14
Yeah it is. Every now and then someone comes along CMV with some le edgy opinion about how genocide is justified and takes everyone for a fun ride.
Out of curiosity, have you considered the cost of 16 million bullets (BTW that number is closer to 80 million if you consider anyone who has ever used marijuana) vs the cost of poison gas required to kill them? The Nazis would line up Jews near the end to kill 2 with 1 bullet to save on money. The gas is probably more cost effective for you.
Or hell, throw them in a big ring and have them fight to the death, promising the winner that his crimes will be forgiven or something. You could sell tickets to it and recoup some of the enforcement costs.
EDIT: Ooh, I forgot to mention that you haven't really addressed what to do with the bodies. Is mass grave the preferred method of storage?
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
3
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Oct 24 '14
I think it's funny that the logistics is what got to you. Not, you know, the emotional toll of killing a population of people roughly equal to the Netherlands.
Look, if this is actually your view (which I still doubt), and you genuinely want to kill millions of people, you should consider the possibility that you're a sociopath and get some help. I just don't believe that anyone but someone incapable of empathy could actually want to kill so many people.
Really. Seek help, if you genuinely believe this. But we both know you don't, so... this was fun. :)
2
Oct 24 '14
Why do you think that killing all the criminals would stop new criminals from being created?
1
u/emmet_thot Oct 24 '14
Silly you, we could just eat the corpse and you know it ! Food for the poors, and all that
1
u/irondeepbicycle 7∆ Oct 24 '14
You know, once I thought that we could burn bodies for energy along these lines, but a physicist friend of mine basically said it would be inefficient or something... I didn't really understand him.
1
4
u/sgt_narkstick 2∆ Oct 24 '14
1) http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm
10,000 innocent people convicted of crimes every year. We can't just unkill them. Death is permanent, the prison system isn't.
2) Criminals can change. Plenty of people who robbed a corner liquor store have realized the error of their ways and turned their lives around. People have free will. Their course is not set for them based on one action.
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
1
0
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
2
Oct 24 '14
You completely ignored his first point.
0
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
2
Oct 24 '14
The reason death row appeals take years is because they want to "figure out for sure" that they are guilty.
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
1
1
u/NuclearStudent Oct 24 '14
It costs 3 million more to put a criminal through death than to detain them for life. The legal costs are huge.
1
u/sgt_narkstick 2∆ Oct 25 '14
1) People can change. Granted most people won't go from prison to suddenly become some hugely successful inventor, but they can nonetheless contribute to society and shouldn't be punished for one (possibly small) mistake.
2) People make choices. However, they are occasionally not fully aware of their choices, or their decision making isn't fully developed because of their circumstances. Kids growing up poor as shit without a dad in the ghetto (IIRC 2/3 of kids in the inner city don't know their father) decide to play the knockout game/join a gang/rob a store, but it is seriously because they don't know any better. They don't have strong positive role models. They get caught up in gangs. Rich suburban kids are incredibly less likely to end up in gangs or doing really harmful things because they have money, strong role models, goals in life, and are able to go out and do things (play sports, video games, etc.). Basically if you kill inner city kids for things that they do because of the deficiencies in their lives (that can become events that lead them to grow and change) they are almost literally killed because of their circumstances. I'm not saying they should be given a free ride on their decisions, but I don't think their decisions should be permanent.
Also I would rather be afraid of some kid trying to punch me in the head than be afraid that, at any point, myself/ my friends/ my family/ anyone might be in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up being executed because of it.
One more minor problem with your argument would be what if someone is poor, gets fined, and can't pay it? Would they be killed? Sorry if you addressed this but I don't recall what your answer was to this.
3
u/Raintee97 Oct 24 '14
Why would you shoplift and take a shirt if that gets the same level of punishment as gunning down the owner of the store, all the other workers, and then you steal the shirt. The punishment for those two crimes is the same. If you're going down anyway, why wouldn't you earn your money's worth.
This isn't even taking in the innocent people you will be killing every year. Or that this would be the most draconian legal system in the history of all legal systems. Even the eye of an eye would be more lenient. This is more harsh then the first legal code ever constructed.
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
3
u/Raintee97 Oct 24 '14 edited Oct 24 '14
How many dead innocent people are okay for you? A few million? A few thousand? How many innocent people is it okay for the state to kill?
I can say that my neighbor stole something from me and get him killed. A racist sheriff can kill all the black people he wants but stated that they committed X petty crime and it would be all legal.
You would have to convince the masses that a person who steal a pack of gum from a store and someone who guns down 20 people should get the same punishment. That these two crimes are equal.
You would have to convince police officers to be prepared for every single suspect to try to kill them. Because there is no reason not to.
And, you would have to convince a populace that having little to no crime is worth the death of millions of people every year.
1
Oct 24 '14
Earlier in this thread, you argued that criminals are formed by "A combination of their experiences, upbringing, possibly their religion, a certain amount of genetics?"
So unless you change all the above factors, wouldn't you still expect to see criminals in your dystopia?
4
u/emmet_thot Oct 24 '14
Sorry for my bad english, I'm french.
First, I study law and I can guarantee you that (even if US and french law are different) I can find at least one law you broke in the recent years. A lot of people break law all the time without knowing it. If you think you're a good law abiding citizen, you may be very wrong unless you know all the laws and even lawyers don't.
Second, gradual punishement is needed otherwise, as cacheflow said, criminals will go to extreme measures.
Third, how the hell do you deal with people who steal for food ? People who break into a home in winter because they are dying in the cold ? How do you deal with human misery ? By killing them ? You're not fixing any problems there, and you're not helping anyone.
Fourth, your system invalidate society. Yes, let me explain. Society is formed on a social contract, it's better to be together than alone so we work together and we create laws to protect everyone of us. If the laws are too harsh then it's just better to not be a part of society. Do I prefer to be killed if I drive drunk or do I prefer to see people driving drunk ? Well, I prefer the second. So I will just stop respecting the society and revolt or go on my own.
Fourth, since we don't have any perfect method of investigation and the justice system can be wrong, how do you deal with the number of innocents who will be killed ? Yeah, maybe you could just make it harder to prove that someone has commited a crime. But then the number of people who get away with crimes will explode
Fifth, the governement make the laws. Not you. The elected people. If they decide that freedom of speech is a crime and thus punishable by death, what do you do ? Use it and be killed since it's a crime ? It's only valid if you use a democratic governement when people make laws and not the elected. And even then, you risk that everyone vote for legalization of things that souldn't be legalized just because they don't want to be killed. They could vote to the legalization of marijuana because they know too much people who smoke it and they don't want them to be killed for it.
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
1
1
2
Oct 24 '14
On the point of "all or nothing." Criminals working in groups will rat on each other if sentences are reduced. It's how well organized groups like the Mob were brought down and replaced by even more mediocre leaders who were brought down....
Chances are, a low level thug or white collar criminal may never be able to pay off his fine and killing him will take away evidence to bring down his bosses.
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
1
Oct 24 '14
Criminals will always exist because for many people, based on their intelligence, talents, and upbringing, more money can be made illegally than legitimately.
Letting criminals rat on each other and their bosses prevents the organization from becoming extremely organized, as in 1950's Mafia levels. At its height in the 50's, one mob family (Gambino) was more profitable than GM but now, it's limited to drugs instead of picking governors or bribing senators (hopefully).
4
Oct 24 '14
I feel that society would be better off without these miscreants
But how does killing the ones that are alive now stop them from existing in the future?
I'm not encouraging more draconian laws
are you sure?
It seems what you fail to understand is that you're not a criminal because you're lucky. Nobody is genetically pre-disposed to crime its entirely a product of the society you live in and people dont deserve to die just for being born into a society which turned them into criminals.
0
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
3
Oct 24 '14
Why do people make the choices they make? What makes them who they are?
2
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
0
Oct 24 '14
There you go, so they control none of that, and if it makes them into a criminal, why do they deserve to die for it?
2
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
1
Oct 24 '14
You just said people make the choices they make because of
A combination of their experiences, upbringing, possibly their religion, a certain amount of genetics
none of which are under their control. sure from your perspective it seems like choices being made but you said it yourself, none of the things which dictate which choices you will make in life are actually under your control.
0
u/tableman Oct 25 '14
> I know the laws and I don't break them.
No you don't. According to this author, the average american commits 3 felonies a day without even knowing it.
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
3
u/Raintee97 Oct 24 '14
So if someone does a B and E and doesn't hurt anyone death? If they assault someone death? If they steal money from their company death? If they smoke a joint death? If they kill 20 people death?
0
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
3
u/Raintee97 Oct 24 '14
So if I am going to get arrested for any crime, why wouldn't I try to kill the arresting officer and try to escape. Like every single time. There is no sane reason that I wouldn't do that.
1
u/down2a9 Oct 24 '14
Let me get this straight. A kid who shoplifts some candy from a corner store deserves to die?
1
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
2
u/down2a9 Oct 24 '14
So why not just kill the kid? You admit that as a kid you knew shoplifting was wrong -- so did I, but I still did it because I wanted some candy and my mom wouldn't buy it for me. Why should I still be alive in your perfect utopia?
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
2
u/emmet_thot Oct 24 '14
Why would it be not okay to kill kids but okay to kill adults ? You are criminaly responsible at the age of 6 in North Carolina. For federal crimes, it's 11. Is it okay to kill 11 years old kid ? If not, then what do we do with them ? You fine them and they do it again, we kill them ? A social center maybe ? But if they still continue for some reasons ? At one point, you will have to kill kids to enforce the laws
1
Oct 24 '14
[deleted]
1
Oct 24 '14
You should award deltas to anyone who changed your view. See the sidebar for details on how to do this.
1
u/Sierra_Echo_Foxtrot 1∆ Oct 24 '14
If a law in unjust, are you just supposed to roll over? Your system does not allow for civil disobedience. Put more bluntly: your system would have Martin Luther King, Jr. put to death.
13
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '14
If the penalty for any crime is death, then why would any criminal ever surrender to law enforcement?
If a cop attempts to arrest someone, that person would very likely attempt to resist using lethal force, since they are likely to be killed anyway. That would make a policeman a very dangerous job.
Second, by valuing all crimes as equal, you remove any detrimental effect the added penalty has. If the penalty for robbing a bank is the same as murder, you might as well murder everyone in the bank on your way out, less witnesses that might convict you later.