Moving this video to oritteropo's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by eric3579.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This isn't one of those things you can discuss in isolation. There does exist the problem of violent criminals that refuse to listen to any and all authority. When you have free citizen that murders somebody, if you are lucky enough to catch and convict them they go to jail. Some of these folks continue to violently attack other inmates. Some even continue to violent attack the prison guards when they come in to try and stop that. There comes a point where the question is what to we do? Just how many resources do we expend working with individuals hell bent on abusing the rights and bodies of everyone else around them? Western legal systems have already ruled any form of punishment through physical force as out of the question, so self preservation isn't a motivation. There exist scenarios where the only option left for protecting people from an individual is isolation.

It's good to do our best to treat even the worst elements of society with the highest standard possible. The trouble is in practice failing to punish certain actions with imprisonment or isolation leads to predictable abuse of otherwise innocent bystanders.

Ha.

thank you.

It seems like executing violent criminals would be the cheapest (assuming execution is performed immediately and through practical methods) and most effective way of neutralizing the threat.

People really need to stop with the whole "every life is sacred" nonsense. If you hurt and kill innocent people, there is nothing sacred about your existence. Quite the opposite, in fact. Your existence is a bane on society and should be removed.

The problem is that you can't immediately execute, because we have decided that an irreversible ultimate punishment should be reserved for crimes that have been proven more conclusively than by a single trial in a system we all know can make mistakes. That means numerous automatic appeals, which account for a majority of the expense in executions. If we insist on executions, I think that's proper, do our utmost to be sure we only execute people guilty of what they're convicted of....even then we make mistakes.

I would think that those prisoners that require solitary for 'safety' should be closely examined for mental defects, as they likely belong in maximum security mental institutions rather than prisons, especially when you consider the effects of solitary on 'sane' people. Subjecting a mentally ill person to something that causes psychosis then releasing them is almost guaranteeing they not only re-offend, but escalate in the damage they do. It's cheaper and more moral to properly treat these people than it is to imprison and/or execute them....even if you never release them.

I've always found it interesting that Norway's PRISONS rehabilitate people much better than North America's CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES.