A criminal (let's use a murderer, for example) is entitled to human rights and humane treatment...

A criminal (let's use a murderer, for example) is entitled to human rights and humane treatment, if all he did was cause harm to a society, and the biggest harm possible to an individual (taking a life)?

Is the current system of imprisonment for the purpose of "punishing" and rehabilitating this criminal to be re-ingressed in society, morally and/or rationally correct?

Is death-sentence for that criminal, morally and/or rationally correct?

How should a criminal (expanding to other types of crime, like drug-dealing, robbery, rape) be treated by society, seeing that imprisonment is basically living life on easy mode (free food, shelter, "safety", all paid by honest civilian's taxes)? Shouldn't that criminal be stripped of his right as a civilian? I'm not advocating shooting all types of criminals on sight like animals, but the current system is flawed in the way that this guy will not be deterred by fear of imprisonment, and much less be rehabilitated in his time in prison.

Pic not related

>Pic not related

Isn't that Raskolnikov about to murder the landlady in Crime and Punishment? Seems pretty related to me.

There are only really two approaches to crime: punishment and rehabilitation. They're both "moral", and the balance between the two a society takes is largely a product of that societies technological and administrative capacity. Ancient societies with minimal state apparatus prefered direct punishments of the "eye for an eye" variety for the most part because they lacked real alternatives, modern states put more of a focus on imprisonment and rehabilitation because it has the economic power to make that practical, but punishment is still a central pillar of most legal systems.

Yet it does naught to change the criminal into a productive member of society, or deter someone from committing a crime. Seems like a flawed and useless system to me.

"an eye for an eye" sounds much more practical, to be honest.

Bear in mind I come from a third world shithole, where an average prison is miles better than the average life of a poor/very poor person.

Pic not related because I just googled some shit (and yes, you're correct in regards to that).

>Yet it does naught to change the criminal into a productive member of society, or deter someone from committing a crime. Seems like a flawed and useless system to me.

Depends how you approach it, Norway for example has extremely low rates of recidivism and one of the most "rehabilitation-focused" legal systems in the world. Meanwhile the USA is almost solely concerned with punishment and has skyhigh rates of re-offending.

>"an eye for an eye" sounds much more practical, to be honest.

It appeals directly to our sense of justice and is definitely the more economical approach, but society benefits much more from rehabilitation in the long run.

>Bear in mind I come from a third world shithole, where an average prison is miles better than the average life of a poor/very poor person.

Economic weakness makes rehabilitation generally ineffective, it's an expensive route to take. The best alternative in such situations could be labor camps, like the pre-Soviet Russian gulag Raskolnikov is sent to. There, criminals can pay back society thru unpaid labor and hopefully learn a usable trade they can rely on when they are released to keep them from going back to crime.

Wouldn't liberals/progressists/leftists/whathaveyou freak out about "muh human rights" in both cases, though? I.e. criminals being punished "eye for an eye" or basically slavery labor.

Personally, I wouldn't bat an eye to both those options, because in my opinion, once someone commits a crime (specially more grave ones, like murder and rape), they're giving up their right to be treated humanely. But that's just me. And I got a lot of flak from my peers for pointing that out in a discussion related to this topic (crime and punishment).

I wanted to hear more diversified opinions regarding this topic, since I'm pretty much on the fence, somewhat.

>"muh human rights"

Well sure, but we're just talking about principles not about what is politically possible.

>Personally, I wouldn't bat an eye to both those options, because in my opinion, once someone commits a crime (specially more grave ones, like murder and rape), they're giving up their right to be treated humanely

Most murders are crimes of passion and most criminals do not re-offend. In my opinion, taking a lenient approach on the first offence and then going Old Testament only on those criminals who re-offend would give the best outcomes. Too many psychopathic career criminals go from jail back to teh streets and then back to jail over and over, putting such people down would be a benefit not only to their potential next victims but to those lesser criminals who would otherwise fall under their influence.

Now that's a response I'm comfortable with.

laws are a question of practicality and social engineering. bringing morality into it is non-sequitur, and bringing up law for questions of morality is crude simplism.

like many popular dilemmas this has no substance. you'd be more productive contemplating suicide.

>seeing that imprisonment is basically living life on easy mode

Ah ok, I was wondering when the editorializing would come.

Like I stated in the following post, I live in a third world shithole.
It literally is.
Unless you're a rapist or pedophile. Then it's hell on earth for you. Inmates will literally fuck your shit up inside.

The best solution is to have penal colonies, because it forces the problem unto someone else.

>he doesn't realize one of the main goals of a criminal justice system is to protect the public
>he thinks brutalised inmates and a harsh penal system make for a safer society
>he doesn't realise the loss of liberty *is* the punishment
>he doesn't realize a passive aggressive "kill you with kindness" prison regime is a different kind of exquisite punishment for high testosterone types with a poor sense of empathy and impulse control

Is this bait? At this point I just don't know anymore.

up to you, bud. i don't give a shit either way.

Then don't post.

you're not the boss of me

This

>a criminal is entitled to human rights
I think "human rights" are more of a social contract rather than God given rights.
We agree to treat eachother humanely but once you break that agreement you are no longer protected by the agreement.

>>imprisonment is basically living life on easy mode
lol, maybe compared to medieval dungeons.

Oh and you might want to consider what you mean by criminal, here in the US all sorts of behaviors that aren't directly harmful to another human being can theoretically get you in trouble with the law.

Norwegian here. I've seen rehabilitation work wonders. Most people who commit crime are not lunatics out for blood for the sake of blood. Most are people who screw up and regret it, or does it out of economic necessity. For both of these two i find it both morally and rationally correct to focus on rehabilitation.

But we're not talking about your average criminal are we?
>if all he did was cause harm to a society, and the biggest harm possible to an individual (taking a life)?
Rationally i think it would be best to end this persons life. Keeping them alive in a cage doesn't help anyone. It feels more like a moral obligation. Whether it is moral to end the life of these people, I'm leaning yes.

But that doesn't mean I'm for capital punishment in the current year. I don't have enough trust in the worlds law enforcement systems to give them authority to take life.

He's holding that axe wrong.

The way we deal with criminals might be flawed, and maybe that's just because we don't really know how to deal with them properly.

How do you fix a degenerate idiot?

Death
Problem solved

>He's holding that axe wrong.

Maybe he just wishes to brain the guy with the back end.