|
|
|
|
I ask the following questions here not because they are our usual topic but because I value your input, which in most cases is thoughtful and sage.
Imagine that a man is serving a life sentence (with no possibility of remission or parole) because he committed the most heinous crime in his country's history. This man was unmarried when he began his sentence.
Would you approve any of the following? -
Would you permit him to marry a woman who wants to marry him?
Would you permit them to cohabit in prison?
Would you permit him to donate his semen for artificial insemination of his wife?
If a child is born to this couple would you permit the child to visit the father?
(This is not an imaginary situation. The prisoner is being held in solitary confinement and is under constant surveillance. His fate is also charged with great political meaning in his country.)
I think these questions are important for defining the ethics of the extent of the clash between the demands of penalty for a very serious crime and basic human rights.
Your thoughts please.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can unhestitatingly answer "YES" to all four questions.
But my own views on prison and punishment are probably not widely shared. Briefly, I don't believe that that there is any justification for any penalty that does not (preferably)give the offender an opportunity to find repentance and rehabilitation, or (at worst) prevent a re-offence (for example, by imprisoning the offender). The idea of "punishment", in the sense that someone did something bad and must be made to suffer for it, or in the sense that it would gratify us / society to see them suffer for it, is in my view barbaric.
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
JFR wrote:
> I ask the following questions here not because they are our usual topic but because I value your input, which in most cases is thoughtful and sage.
>
> Imagine that a man is serving a life sentence (with no possibility of remission or parole) because he committed the most heinous crime in his country's history. This man was unmarried when he began his sentence.
>
> Would you approve any of the following? -
>
> Would you permit him to marry a woman who wants to marry him?
Yes
> Would you permit them to cohabit in prison?
No, but they should be entitled to conjugal visits.
> Would you permit him to donate his semen for artificial insemination of his wife?
Yes
> If a child is born to this couple would you permit the child to visit the father?
Yes
>
> (This is not an imaginary situation. The prisoner is being held in solitary confinement and is under constant surveillance. His fate is also charged with great political meaning in his country.)
>
> I think these questions are important for defining the ethics of the extent of the clash between the demands of penalty for a very serious crime and basic human rights.
>
> Your thoughts please.
Can there be some background of the charges by which he was convicted?
If he is in jail for his thoughts and convictions then a travesty of justice has been committed.
If he is a nasty person bombong kindergarten schools then he is well placed.
It is not easy to evaluate a situation without a clear picture of the situation.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
JFR wrote:
> I ask the following questions here not because they are our usual topic but because I value your input, which in most cases is thoughtful and sage.
>
> Imagine that a man is serving a life sentence (with no possibility of remission or parole) because he committed the most heinous crime in his country's history. This man was unmarried when he began his sentence.
>
> Would you approve any of the following? -
>
> Would you permit him to marry a woman who wants to marry him?
I see this as pointless
> Would you permit them to cohabit in prison?
No
> Would you permit him to donate his semen for artificial insemination of his wife?
No
> If a child is born to this couple would you permit the child to visit the father?
The child will not be born, because of the foregoing
>
> (This is not an imaginary situation. The prisoner is being held in solitary confinement and is under constant surveillance. His fate is also charged with great political meaning in his country.)
>
> I think these questions are important for defining the ethics of the extent of the clash between the demands of penalty for a very serious crime and basic human rights.
>
The penalty for a crime is removal from society until that crime is purged. Unless that is not the law where the person is imprisoned, I view that as total removal. The sentence is a punishment. That includes removal of all normal rights of association and procreation.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
So you believe there should be no visitation rights?
A prisoner has some basic rights here and with the proper advancments in his/her behavior are allowed certain privileges.
I find it hard to believe (but not impossible) that a person can commit a crime which is not deemed as rehabilatable.
There are however criminals which are impelled by psychosis and thus are locked away to protect society from the illness.
But as I stated previous, without some background information there can be no clear cut answer to this persons dilema.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
if you commit the crime you should be punished,
the last thing we want is for this animal to breed or indeed have any form of relationship male or female.
if i had my way he would be donated to medical science so that at least his body could be used to benefit mankind.
when you are in prison for murder etc you dont suddenly become healed.
in the u.k. we are to soft on crime,it needs to be that life means life till you die not life & let you out in 3 years and be a good boy.boy.. .
P.S and it is not spiritual....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said he should not be able to breed. Are you saying that the offspring would inherit a gene that would make him a criminal? If thats the case with all the bad Genes floating around in my family Im in serious trouble.
I agree that if his crime is of a political nature, then justice was not done. However if it is a really bad crime, like Child rape, murder, serial killer, etc, Then he should get nothing but three meals and a cell.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR:
> Would you permit him to marry a woman who wants to marry him?
> Would you permit them to cohabit in prison?
> Would you permit him to donate his semen for artificial insemination of his wife?
> If a child is born to this couple would you permit the child to visit the father?
If other inmates are allowed conjugal visits, then I see no problem with the first, third and fourth. I think the second would be very complicated to organise from a legal point of view and is really against the spirit of incarceration. But it depends very much on the laws of the country. I don't feel especially strongly either way.
I don't agree with Timmy:
>The penalty for a crime is removal from society until that crime is purged. Unless that is not the law where the person is imprisoned, I view that as total removal. The sentence is a punishment. That includes removal of all normal rights of association and procreation.
I know of almost nowhere where this holds entirely true. In almost all countries prisoners are allowed visitors. They are given an opportunity to better themselves and hopefully rehabilitate. They still have many legal rights. Punishment is not the sole purpose of imprisonment, at least in civilised countries.
I don't think it's a good idea to let emotions colour our judgement. I don't know to whom JFR is referring and there is a good possibility that if I did I would be horrifed at the nature of his crimes. However, I have tried to keep that out of my mind when considering this issue.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
what would you do let them out because some fool of a pyschiatic doctor or religious do gooder said so. make no mistake they will carry our the crimes of murder child abuse rape and what ever because some people are evil.
the reason they should not be allowed to breed is because of the stress it would cause the off spring but apart from that they should not be allowed sexual pleaser but indeed laced with bromide untill they part this world and perhaps meet their maker:-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Based on that tact should we sterilize the poor because their children might suffer for lack on common necessities?
The fact is that prison indeed does little to rehabilitate wrongdooers and in fact youth sent to prison generally become hardened criminals by the time they are released.
But given an already overstressed penal system (at least here in the USA) and the implimintation of progressive educational as well as counceling programs tiny steps are being made.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I simply took the circumstances in the question and answered those. I do not see why a prisoner has the right to marry or procreate.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>what would you do let them out because some fool of a pyschiatic doctor or religious do gooder said so
Religious do-gooders have no place in the legal system in civilised countries. On the other hand, psychiatrists, along with other professional expert witnesses, are the best people we have for judging whether a person is rehabilitated and safe to release. Not people like you, who condemn criminals without any knowledge of their crimes or the sentence they are already serving. Sometimes expert witnesses are wrong, but the only alternative we have is to lock people up and throw away the key. Occasionally this is appropriate, but in the majority of cases it is not.
I feel as sick as anyone else when I hear of a particularly unpleasant crime. But unless I had the full details of the case, as presented in a court of law, I would not presume to dictate what should happen to happen to the perpetrator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
so why is it that the majority carry on offending.
it is because they are bad blood.
I dout if they can be healed by drugs and a good shrink.:-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
what we need to do is look after the millions of normal hard working people,
and stop worrying about a few miiss fits that can not and will not and do not want to blend into nrmal society. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>so why is it that the majority carry on offending.
Which majority? I thought we were talking about major crimes here -- murder, rape and so on.
>it is because they are bad blood.
>I dout if they can be healed by drugs and a good shrink.
Oh, so if you have bad blood -- there's no such thing as free will? No such thing as rehabilitation?
If you can blame something like that on bad blood then you're essentially saying there's no way of helping these people. They are beyond redemption.
Some people -- the most psychopathic -- are. But they are mentally ill. Some people are victims of circumstance. Drug addiction. Crimes of passion. Poverty. Domestic violence. Some people commit crimes because they think they have no choice. It doesn't make them right, but it doesn't mean they have "bad blood".
Who gets to decide which people have "bad blood" and can't be helped? The mob? No, it should be, as it is, professionals -- judges, lawyers, expert witnesses, doctors, and, provided they are fully informed, juries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>what we need to do is look after the millions of normal hard working people,
and stop worrying about a few miiss fits that can not and will not and do not want to blend into nrmal society.
It does matter what happens to these people. Provided what they have done and their punishment is out in the open people people can see whether the legal system is working or not. I agree, in some ways it isn't. But if you think it isn't, propose a way it could be improved. Not just "string them up and let's forget about them". If criminals are just locked up and forgotten about it is the beginning of a police state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Rehabilitation does not end with the term of a prison sentence. If society looks at released ex-offenders as "ex-offenders" rather than just people then they will never have a chance to fit in because he is judged as bad seed.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitop
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: June 2005
Messages: 73
|
|
|
Now, after 12 hours or so and 16 very interesting replies without knowing, may we know of what the prisoner was convicted, in what country and any details of the prosecution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
This is a hugely complex question, so I apologise if this is a simplistic answer.
First, to address the original four points, I'd argue that imprisonment necessarily involves the loss of many liberties, and one of those is the right to sexual relations. I leave aside the unpleasant truths which reflect the inadequacy of prison control and supervision. I also doubt the wisdom of permitting inmates to marry. This really follows from the above; there is something inherently artificial about a marriage which in such circumstances cannot be consummated. So, like Timmy, I return three 'no' responses and one 'not applicable'.
That probably makes me appear very right-wing, though my political ideology is in some ways so far to the left that binoculars may be required to establish the fact that I am actually in attendance! I do believe that the public is entitled to protection, but I also believe absolutely in the priority of redemption over revenge. If our prisons are a breeding ground for hardened criminals, then that is a failing of our prison system, not of the individuals who pass through it. On the other hand, I accept that a deterrent element is logically necessary; it is the lack of this deterrent factor which underlies much of the current problem with juvenile crime. Rehabilitation schemes are fine, but by and large the system is so underfunded that such schemes have little chance of success.
I accept - in theory - all that Deeej has to say about reliance upon the advice of professionals, but I have two major reservations. The first is that there are widely varying degrees of professional competence, and when it comes to psychiatric medicine the state doesn't pay enough to attract the best talent - so mistakes are pretty well inevitable. The second is that there is continual government pressure to reduce spending and thus to return as many idividuals as possible to the community - and since the decisions are made by consultants paid by government there is a clear conflict of interest. That's is not to say that I believe in throwing away the key - far from it! I do however think that the system needs more money and less platitudes.
So I come to bad blood. Do I believe in such a thing? Absolutely not. It's true that criminality arising from mental illness may have genetic consequences, but such cases are the exception rather than the rule. Take the very young child of a violent criminal and give it the benefit of a decent upbringing, and the child will be subject to a much greater influence from the latter than from his or her genetic inheritance. But until we address the problems of the underprivileged in society, environmental factors will produce a continuous stream of potential criminals.
The last three paragraphs respond more to comments made by others than to the original question posed by JFR. Going back to that question, I am not sure that the circumstances of the offence would change my response to the question, though more information might lead me to conclude that the sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole was unjustified - but I'd then be arguing against the sentence, not about the marriage issue.
Finally, there remains the matter of political necessity. I can conceive that in very exceptional circumstances the greater good of the greater number might outweigh the basic principles of natural justice. Ignoring the fact that, at the time, the death penalty was commonplace, and assuming that life imprisonment would have applied, consider the situation if Hitler had been captured before he had a chance to commit suicide, and had been imprisoned. Then assume that he had a 'Road to Damascus' experience, repenting all the sins of his previous existence, and that on the best available psychiatric assessment this repentance was genuine. I would suggest that, even though he might have found redemption, it would have been politically impossible to release him.
As I said at the top of this post, it's a complex question and the answers certainly aren't easy!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which were, predictably, varied. But all were of the usual high quality I have come to expect on this board.
I deliberately withheld vital information because I did not want the particular circumstances of the case to obfuscate the wider issues.
The prisoner concerned is Yigal Amir, the self-confessed murderer of Israel's Prime Minister Rabin. The assassination took place in November 1995 and its avowed intention was to derail the peace process: in that he was proven successful, and managed to take many more lives vicariously.
Of course the murder was political and the man has become quite a cult figure for extremist right-wingers. He is constantly trying to find ways of keeping himself in the news - to the delight of his family and supporters - and he plays the processes of liberal democracy for all he is worth. During numerous appearances in court - all televised - he refuses to show any regret for the murder and "would do it again".
His first attempt to gain some kind of access to the outside world was his request to marry. The Israel Prison Service denied his request. He circumvented that by marrying the woman by proxy. Next he requested the right of cohabitation with his wife; this too was denied. So now he has applied for the right to artificially inseminate his wife. Presumably he already has his sights on the 'event' that the media will make of his child's eventual birth, education, visits... and so on ad infinitum.
>>The Israel Prison Service commissioner and the State's prosecutor have decided to allow Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's murderer Yigal Amir to transfer semen to his spouse Larissa Trimbobler and enable her to undergo artificial insemination. The IPS reported Amir will not have to leave prison in order to take part in the procedure. In a petition submitted by Amir recently, the PM's killer asked to allow him and his wife to go through artificial insemination. The IPS and the State's prosecutor were scheduled to reply to the petition Tuesday, but eventually decided to withdraw their objection to the process. The court hearing was thus consequently called off. In the petition, Amir's attorneys said that despite the fact they in no way sympathize with their client's actions, they are "entrusted with safeguarding human rights," and that the attempt to prevent Amir from having children hurts a fundamental human right. The petition also stated that "a society is measured in the way it treats the weak and those it finds despicable," and that "a democratic society is committed to display intellectual dignity and courage when it comes to avoiding imposing anti-democratic measures, even against those who acted in the ultimate anti-democratic way. Emotions, political interests and journalistic analysis must be left outside the court," Amir's lawyers further claimed, saying the discussion on the matter must remain "legalistic, civil and to the point." Amir is classified as a security prisoner, and as such he is banned from being granted holidays, permission to meet privately with his spouse and to undergo fertility treatments.<<
Again, thank you all for your thoughtful comments.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
