Originally posted by yavoon
oedo I would say that before you commit ur first crime the idea is to prevent crime. but once u have broken the law and taken away someone else's rights? life? liberty? money? then there is some definite punishment involved w/ me.
and I see no problem w/ taking away a felon's right to vote.
oedo I would say that before you commit ur first crime the idea is to prevent crime. but once u have broken the law and taken away someone else's rights? life? liberty? money? then there is some definite punishment involved w/ me.
and I see no problem w/ taking away a felon's right to vote.
1. general prevention: people shall be prevented from committing crimes because they know they will be punished for crimes.
2. individual prevention: people who turned out beeing criminals shall be reintegrated into society. they shall learn their lesson for the next time.
3. theory of retaliation: serving the human need for justice.
(a fourth reason is conceivable: people should get imprisoned, so they can´t do any harm to the people outside anymore. as long as I studied law, this didn´t make it to an official theory here in Germany and - as I suppose - in many other countries as well. but we don´t need this theory here, since taking away the right of voting doesn´t shelter anyone in anyway.)
it´s up to you, if you believe in general or individual prevention. but there are provable cases where individual prevention has worked. the general prevention theory is hard to prove. I simply believe in it and I also believe that taking away further civil rights would undermine this aim.
I also don´t see a reason, why the human need for justice and revenge should be more important than keeping the crime rate as low as possible in a society. also i think the punishment itself should be able to fulfill the human need for justice, so there´s no need for any further restriction.
Comment