Jump to content

Primary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Secondary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Squares Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Photo

Capital punishment or rehabilitation of criminals. Pros & Cons. (Please logical arguments only)


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
kosmaj

kosmaj

    Potato Sprout

  • Members
  • 7 posts

I agree to the death penalty, when it comes to the horrific crime, or in which the defendant does not show any remorse, or after serving a sentence he starts killing again. So yes, I am for the death penalty only in these cases, but only after a thorough examination of the case and 100% sure of the guilt of the accused.


Edited by kosmaj, 08 April 2013 - 06:54 PM.


#2
xipo

xipo

    Potato Spud

  • Members
  • 22 posts
Well thats the problem there is no such thing as 100% and who will decide when its completally sure, after all the ones sentecing are also human and that means that there is always place for error, the finality of death sentence is to much.
And secondly if the state kills what makes it less of an murder?

And this is coming from a person that many Times' have thought that some people deserve death when hearing about a terrible crime, but in the end killing is not justice its all abort revenge.

#3
Partysan

Partysan

    Potato Spud

  • Members
  • 30 posts

There are many obvious arguments against the death penalty, but I'd like to offer one that is rarely thought about: There surely are people who deserve death, no question. Slow deaths even. But the decision of whether someone is allowed to live or must die mustn't be given to anyone. I would not trust any judge or gremium with the power over life and death. It is not the decision of one human to make over another. It leads only to suffering.

One could argue against this, but anything besides bloody revenge that execution accomplishes, mainly that the same person cannot repeat their crime, can also be accomplished by (possibly lifelong) incarceration. I'd much rather employ semi-forced labour (to make up for the cost of prisons) than capital punishment.

 

Also, to cite Gandalf: "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."



#4
LeopoldStotch

LeopoldStotch

    Potato Sprout

  • Members
  • 2 posts

If you kill him he will not commit further crimes, simple as that. It's also much cheaper.

The way it's done is inefficient, shooting the perpetrator would be much quicker and less risky than the chair or poison. And only cost 50c.

 

However, there is obviously no going back on that sentence, once it's done its done.

Also, the one that speaks the sentence should do the killing.

That said, I'm in favor.


Edited by LeopoldStotch, 13 April 2013 - 07:02 PM.


#5
Banana Bread

Banana Bread

    Potato Spud

  • Contributor
  • 36 posts

I would say it depends where in the world...  Let's say you live in a country with good police work where forensics can pinpoint the guilt of a person using irrefutable evidence compared to a country with still primitive police work, where evidence can easily be tampered with if you have the right connections and the funds to pay off the cops.  Unfortunately I live in the part of the world where the second rule applies more than the first, honestly I am for the death penalty, why?  The psychological factor, criminals would think twice before committing heinous crimes and that itself can already help but I don't see it working in a country with an incompetent police force and rather than look for the real criminal, they would be eager to fabricate evidence and put the blame on a scapegoat instead to close the case quickly or worse get paid by the guilty party to frame an innocent person.  What would happen to the poor guy they framed then?  


Posted Image

Look at Gunter dance or you can click this ---> http://www.batoto.net/group/_/j/jshoujo-scans-r324

#6
FallingRaven

FallingRaven

    Potato Sprout

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Harsh punishments have no effect on people that do the worst crimes. Those crimes aren't done by people sane enough to bother with the consequences. And as revenge go, killing someone is to quick if they killed someone that you care for. Since they made you live the rest of your life with more pain than before, making them live the rest of there life in pain is a better revenge. And you don't have to live with there life on your conscience.



#7
inzaratha

inzaratha

    Fried Potato

  • Members
  • 501 posts
  • LocationArizona (or somewhere in the forest riding a unicorn)

I am for the death penalty -  it should be the sentence for serious cases, such as a person who has killed repeatedly or done the murder in combination with another crime such as they are quilty of rape and murder.   I am also in favor of the death penalty for people who are serial criminals,  ie serial rapists, armed robbery combined with shooting or any criminals who have committed a large amount of crimes.    There is no point financially in keeping them alive they are a burden to tax payers and may escape and commit more crimes.    Or if they serve like 10 years the likelihood of them getting out and committing crimes again is high.   If they do 2 chances - you're out.    If they have killed one person in a heated occassion no,  but if they have planned out their killings or they are a psychopath there is no reason to have them in society again.  

 

For less serious offenses I am all in favor of rehabiliation and therapy rather than just locking the person in prison and thinking they will come out changed.... 



#8
Expers

Expers

    Potato Spud

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • LocationTitan's Orbit

I support the Death Penalty.

 

 It says money in the long run if you do a bit of research your can find out that the USA currently has 3000+ people on death row, so they sentences should be more prompt and more published in order to dissuade criminals from committing crimes that are heinous enough for the death penalty.

 

@Partysan Their is no forced or semi-forced hard labor in most US prisons, besides would you really trust a murder outside of their cage? I think all prisons should enforce hard labor if all jails/ prisons are all expense payed vacations why would they want to leave? Heck, recently a woman wait to an officer left the police station to slap him so she could be arrested, in order to quit smoking... Perhaps prison system is too relaxed?

 
 

Well thats the problem there is no such thing as 100% and who will decide when its completally sure, after all the ones sentecing are also human and that means that there is always place for error, the finality of death sentence is to much.
And secondly if the state kills what makes it less of an murder?

And this is coming from a person that many Times' have thought that some people deserve death when hearing about a terrible crime, but in the end killing is not justice its all abort revenge.

 

I don't know which country you're from, but I have to stop and think how "there is no such thing as 100%" when it comes to sentencing criminals. I know technology is pretty impressive these days, but it is still nearly impossible to frame someone with faked pictures and videos. And I assume that most witnesses will tell the truth when it come large scale crimes.

 

 

However I do propose a different method of executing criminals and that is however they murder someone they should be killed in that manor.

 

 

 

Definition of MURDER
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

 

 

 

Definition of KILL
transitive verb
 
   : to deprive of life : cause the death of


#9
jfforums

jfforums

    Potato Spud

  • Members
  • 29 posts
I am supporting the death penalty too.

If someone receives that sentence after a trial, had a chance to apeal to a higher court and sentence confirmed, i am for prompt executing of the death penalty. If execution drags on, that can not be used as a example for other offenders, and its counterproductive. Crimes for which i am thinking someone can be sentenced to death penalty are repeated premeditated murder (sentenced once to jail and then after releasing from the jail commited premeditated murder again), terrorist acts, serial murders, narcotics distribution in large quantities,pedophyles crimes, rape cases if they are multiple and with physical abuse - or gangbangs (to exclude creative and overstreched definitions of rape like in Assange case in Sweden).

Society must have legal method to stop repeating some serious crimes by same offenders and to demotivate others to commit those (i am not from USA but, looking at the news, i think school shootings are one of most repeating crimes in that country, think it's at least 3 times more then in all other countries together, probably because of soft punishment policy). In my country now, its distributing narcotics in primary schools, same reason - soft punishment policy.

Rehabilitation sounds fine, but what kind of rehabilitation can be achieved in usually overcrowded prisons, without overwhelming number of social programs and social workers to reeducate prisoners etc. I did not hear for a single prison in world who have serious rehabilitation succes for prisoners (at least for big crimes), simply because society does not have enough money to support serious rehabilitation programs. In fact, prisons are mostly used as criminals "universities", where prisoner can learn much about executing various types of crimes rather then be rehabilitated. Considering the type of persons which are usually in prison, that little society is overwhelmed by brutality between prisoners, or between prisoners and guards, which make any serious talk about rehabilitation even less posible. Second, rehabilitation does not have any meaning, if the prisoners, after serving their time do not get chance for getting normal employment without prejudices from general society. Remember, judicial punishment serves as a method for repaying for commited crimes, so if we look from that point of view, person who served his/hers time in jail should be looked as a normal member of society (whatever the crime was), but where we can find that kind of approach of society? So, as a conclusion, rehabilitation without defined social programs, social workers who will be executing them, and serious investment of society (not only money, but adjusting the views of society towards the rehabilitated criminals too) is only empty talk, used only to easy our conscience. Especially rehabilitation of criminals sentenced for capital crimes.

Economical point is the last thing. Today, in every society crimes are in rise (i am talking mainly about european countrys), so its everywhere insuficient prison space for all sentenced criminals. And as others noticed, its much cheaper for society to eliminate some of most serious criminal offenders then keeping them alive, and puting society in danger with even remote posibility of finding those criminals out of prison by jailbrake...

Arguments about framed cases, wrongly acused persons etc. i cant accept as a serious arguments, because there will be allways those kind of cases, no matter does the country have latest forensic laboratories or its a case with a great number of witnesses. Just to remind you, around 100 years ago fingerprints are used as a 100% proof, around 50 years ago we had polygraphs (lie detectors), around decade or so we have DNK analysis, and we know any of them can be fabricated. Same with witnesses.

For at least lowering the number of those cases, i would suggest considering them as a premeditated murder when judging those who were involved in framing, so there is possibility for them to be sentenced to death penalty too.

Argument about not achieving justice with sentencing someone to death, as that will not return those murdered, or it's a revenge of the society etc. are not serious by my opinion. There is not a country in world where laws and judicial system are made for making justice (justice is personal category, and its derived from personal morality). Instead, the laws and judicial system are made to protect society from those who commit doings that are considered as a crimes, and prevent annihilation of society from anarchy.

I admit that punishment system is sometime inspired by wide public opinion on "justice", but again, primary goal of lows is not justice, but preservation of cociety.

And finaly, i would not say that sentencing someone to spend rest of his life in jail is a more humane way when dealing with capital crimes then death penalty. Being in prison for a lifetime, doing hard labor or any other labor for society during that time i see as a some form of slavery, and i am strictly against that, because that degrades and humiliates human being, even if that human being
is serious criminal. I am here talking only about lifetime sentenced prisoners (and i think some sentences can be considered lifetime if the criminal is old person, lets say 60+ years old and sentence is 15+ years), labor for others can be viewed not only as a chance to reduce society expenses, but as a part of program of rehabilitation too ;).

Edited by jfforums, 15 May 2013 - 08:22 PM.


#10
Partysan

Partysan

    Potato Spud

  • Members
  • 30 posts

There is another problem: escalation. If there's the death penalty, once you have comitted the vrime you have nothing to lose but all to gain by commiting more, e.g. by killing all witnesses, killing the rape victim who could identify you etc. Yes, some murderers would do that anyway, but not all.

Also. no one adressed my main point.



#11
jfforums

jfforums

    Potato Spud

  • Members
  • 29 posts

There is another problem: escalation. If there's the death penalty, once you have comitted the vrime you have nothing to lose but all to gain by commiting more, e.g. by killing all witnesses, killing the rape victim who could identify you etc. Yes, some murderers would do that anyway, but not all.

Also. no one adressed my main point.

 

There is some misunderstanding. I (and i think the others who are for death penalty here too) do not think that there must be only one punishment for a capital crimes - death penalty. Same type of crime can get different types of punishment, depending on circumstances in which crime get done. That rules out your premise about escalation. If someone murders other person in selfdefense, he does not need to kill all witnesses of that :)

If someone murders one or more persons in one instance, i do not see any reason for that person to be sentenced to death automaticaly. But if that kind of crimes get repeated several times by same offender, then there is some problem which can not be resolved by imprisonment only. The crimes like murder, rape etc. can be commited (and are usually done) in the prison too, so putting multiple offenders of capital crimes in prison does not keep them safe from not commiting them again.

 

Keeping that kind of person in isolation for a lifetime is a

1. denying his/hers rights on basic human rights for a rest of its life, in which case i can see that only as a much cruel sentence then death penalty - to say the truth i see that as a unnecesary cruelty, some kind of revenge of society, and as i said laws are not created for revenging the victims, but keeping society safe

2. denying the option of rehabilitation of that person - same as with the enforcing of death penalty

3. technicaly problematic, needs to much of investment of society in something from start unproductive - special prison facilities, guards, food, clothes, medical expenses etc.

 

From your first post i got impression that your main point is:

"But the decision of whether someone is allowed to live or must die mustn't be given to anyone. I would not trust any judge or gremium with the power over life and death. It is not the decision of one human to make over another."

 

Well, that would be fine point for a perfect society, but unfortunately:

- someone who murders other person, already decided over victims life or death, and done that by himself only

- someone who distributes narcotics already decided in some way about life or death of his buyers, and again he himself was aware of that from the start

- rulling politicians who decide that someone is dangerous for their goals can sentence them to death by using drones, snipers or even wars to do that, and they decided over human lifes by themselves, out of judicial system of the society

- food producers who deliberately use ingredients dangerous for life or health at least, decide over lifes/health of others too

- pharmaceutical companys put financial gain over lifes or health of other humans, etc. etc.

 

So, in reality we live in world where plenty of people more or less deliberately endangers the lives of others, even to the level of deciding over their lives and deaths (murderer does not always know personaly his victims - for example terrorists do not choose all of victims of their act), and for that the society did not entitled them with any right (in meaning of law).

 

On the other side, we have judges.

Judge is the person who in the name of the society, by the laws of society gives apropriate sentence (by his opinion). It should be impartial person, respect his law boundaries when deciding etc. etc. In reality they can be corrupted, have personal interests in some cases or in some cases could be just dumb persons who got that job god knows how. But what differs them from others persons who decide of someones life or death, is that the SOCIETY delegated some trust into them and their doing. So, in this imperfect world, they are the ones who should be trusted for such kind of decision, and even for death penalty.

I suggested one measure in first post for at least keeping them from too much abusing of their power.

So, as much imperfect the solution is accepting the judges as someone who can decide over someones life or death, for now society does not have better.

 

And BTW, what Gandalf said in your first post is nice, if we exclude the fact that he murdered (or at least killed :)) thousands of persons (humans, orcs, demons and others) and with that he effectively decided over their life and death, during his "life" and in the process of gaining his wisdom. Someone can say it was selfdefense or defending others, but even that must have some boundaries. If not, even for the Hitler could be said that he was only defending the Germans from others ;).

 

In the end, some facts from life about allowing someone to decide over the persons life or death that talks in your favor Partysan :) In my country will be soon approved law which allows medical doctors to end the life of patient which can not be healed. We do not have death penalty as a crime punishment, we do not approve euthanasia by our laws, and yet there will be some medical doctors who could terminate the life of their patients even against their wishes, using only their medical opinion as a reason!!! Moronic law, even against our constitution, but it will be approved.

That law is just badly translated law our politicians got from our friends from EU. That proves only that even democracy is imperfect solution for organising human societys.



#12
Sancrea

Sancrea

    Potato Spud

  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • LocationPoland

Well i do agree with most points stated by you,  jfforums but one thing bugs me:

 

Keeping that kind of person in isolation for a lifetime is a

1. denying his/hers rights on basic human rights for a rest of its life, in which case i can see that only as a much cruel sentence then death penalty - to say the truth i see that as a unnecesary cruelty, some kind of revenge of society, and as i said laws are not created for revenging the victims, but keeping society safe

2. denying the option of rehabilitation of that person - same as with the enforcing of death penalty

3. technicaly problematic, needs to much of investment of society in something from start unproductive - special prison facilities, guards, food, clothes, medical expenses etc.

 

I can't agree with you on this, especially on point number 1. You said that the role of law is to keep society safe but at the same time you say that keeping murderers behind walls deny their human rights. I can't find any better method for keeping society safe from them except by putting them behind bars :P

Besides point of view about death penalty differs between people that's obvious, but those who never had to deal with a crime (as a witness or victim) will be more likely to be for abolishment of death penalty. Those who are victims can empathize with other victims so they would rather sentence someone to death rather than let them live. I as a person who was so far only a victim of assault(that's not enough to decide wether death penalty is right or wrong, nor if it's needed) I'm for a death penalty.



#13
Pure Darkness

Pure Darkness

    Fingerling Potato

  • Members
  • 75 posts

pros of the death penalty:
1. criminals can't commit more crimes cuz they are dead
2. saves tax payers money (and most couldn't find a fuck to give to the criminals anyway)

3. helps to act as a deterent for future criminals.
4. victims get personal justice and some solice for their wounds

5. if the criminal is healthy then organs can be used to save others. (as long as the organs aren't damaged or unusable. it's a good time to bring back hangings)

 

cons of the death penalty:

1. human rights activists with nothing else to fight
2. innocents wrongly convicted die. (course with the wait time they get theres a chance the real criminal will commit another crime before the sentence is carried out)

3. people protesting the death pentalty for stupid or wrong reasons.

 

im for the death penalty personally, but then again i'd rather a serial killer be dead then have to chance to be free to kill again.


Edited by Pure Darkness, 09 June 2013 - 11:51 PM.

Death to Tsundere!!!!


#14
yariel

yariel

    Russet Potato

  • Members
  • 232 posts

There is another problem: escalation. If there's the death penalty, once you have comitted the vrime you have nothing to lose but all to gain by commiting more, e.g. by killing all witnesses, killing the rape victim who could identify you etc. Yes, some murderers would do that anyway, but not all.

Also. no one adressed my main point.

...

I must apologize first to all before you read my comment ...

 

too bad, there's no bloody torture to death punishment ... (and being shown to public)

so the more they do bad, the longer the criminal get tortured before their death time arrived ...

(what I said seriously inhuman and much worse than death it's self ... but I think some people deserve it)



#15
Gravora

Gravora

    Potato Sprout

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Capital punishment is a permanent event.  I.e. you can't undo the punishment after it is done therefore it must be handled with GREAT care.  However this doesn't mean that capital punishment is bad or wrong.  "Punishment", as I see it, should be there not as a punishment of the wicked; as we all commit sins and are therefore unworthy of passing judgement on others; but as a prevention of further crime.  For someone who has killed once in anger, or even once in cold blood, the death penalty may be a bit too unnecessary as the murder of a single individual does not indicate they intend to kill others.  This is of course up to debate as there are factors which could indicate they are or are not going to kill others.  As for serial killers, who have killed multiple times over a period of multiple days etc, the Capital punishment is easily warranted and required.  It is simply too unsafe to let these people have even a chance of escaping prison, let alone being ALLOWED back into society, for the same reason Capital punishment should be handled with care.

 

As for Rehabilitation.....  Murders, specially serial killers, don't get it.  Period.  I also don't think Rapists (they should actually be castrated), very active thieves (scam artists included) and someone who has committed multiple acts of assault,specially near death beatings, (also drug dealers, specially big ones) should be given a chance of rehabilitation and release.  Rehabilitation they should have actually but the release which it leads to is OFF LIMITS.  I can already see the applicants for rehab drying up, lol.  Everyone else, i think, should be okay to rehab, should they actually succeed the new super difficult one which I would think up for the new system.



#16
Reminiscent Cheeseburger

Reminiscent Cheeseburger

    Potato Spud

  • Members
  • 33 posts
  • LocationThe Desert

Guys Guys Guys.  Prisons in the Western world are to comfortable.  People migrate to Norway, commit a theft, and land themselves in a prison with top of the line medical care, job training, and gourmet food.   I would be for life imprisonment if we (the western world)  imprisoned our criminals in the cells of old, the only comfort being a shower, a newspaper, and the cot that they sleep on.  (look at that guy in Norway, kills over 100 teens, there lives ahead of them, and has a maximum of 25 years!  Freaking insanity.)

 

However, with such comfortable cells (especially for death-row inmates) I support the death penalty.   And with that, I should think it'd be a good idea to make a noose of strong fibers, and just reuse the noose at a gallows, thus saving monies in the long run, and no one can call it unfashionable, because people have been hanged for over a thousand years.



#17
Astra19

Astra19

    Potato Sprout

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Let's look at this in a logical way, note with the pros and cons I'm using un-sourced facts not what someone thinks so there won't be any any human rights added into this


        pros of the death penalty                       cons of the death penalty
    1. They won't repeat the crime                     1. They might be innocent
    2. cheaper than life imprisonment
    3. possible lower crime rate

 

it seems that the pros out way the cons and some may complain about that is inhumane, but when we're talking about someone's life can we afford to be humane. Most likely innocent people will die but also some people will live because some else died. On a side note I come from a first world country where the prisoner sit in their nice cells watching TV or reading books and only have to go to 1 or 2 hour rehabilitation, I think all of them should be stripped down the the barest minimum living conditions so that they know that they're life outside is better than a life inside.



#18
Evilnemesis

Evilnemesis

    Potato

  • Members
  • 124 posts

Let's look at this in a logical way, note with the pros and cons I'm using un-sourced facts not what someone thinks so there won't be any any human rights added into this


        pros of the death penalty                       cons of the death penalty
    1. They won't repeat the crime                     1. They might be innocent
    2. cheaper than life imprisonment
    3. possible lower crime rate

 

it seems that the pros out way the cons and some may complain about that is inhumane, but when we're talking about someone's life can we afford to be humane. Most likely innocent people will die but also some people will live because some else died. On a side note I come from a first world country where the prisoner sit in their nice cells watching TV or reading books and only have to go to 1 or 2 hour rehabilitation, I think all of them should be stripped down the the barest minimum living conditions so that they know that they're life outside is better than a life inside.

 

First world prisons are pretty amazing, for some individuals it's better to stay inside because they would have a lower quality of life outside.

 

Should take notes from the Japanese prison.

 

They are basically at what you'd call a permanent boot camp. They have a strict schedule and strict rules that you'd be punished if you deviated from it.


Unless told otherwise, they're not allowed to talk to each other, they're not allowed to even look at each other or the guards. And during the work they do, they must be focused at all times. If they're at some desk doing some manual work, they must have their head down and if they're caught even taking a peak at the a window or the clock to check the time there are penalties.

 

Too bad a bunch of inmates die inside from what we can only guess is prison brutality. Plenty of reports of unusual deaths, and no one really knows what's happening inside of them.  But when you have read the files and see stuff like "death by anal rupture from a water hose" and they claim it's "self inflicted" wounds, you know something is not quite right. 

 

Japan is, as most people know, alongside U.S.A the only 2 first world countries to have death penalty still.

 

Although I do dislike how they handle Death Row. They aren't even classified as "prisoners".

 

Family visits are pretty rare. 

 

They are executed by hanging, and only know of their fate the morning of the execution. The family are not informed until after the deed.



#19
artlu

artlu

    Potato Sprout

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Let's look at this in a logical way, note with the pros and cons I'm using un-sourced facts not what someone thinks so there won't be any any human rights added into this


        pros of the death penalty                       cons of the death penalty
    1. They won't repeat the crime                     1. They might be innocent
    2. cheaper than life imprisonment
    3. possible lower crime rate

 

it seems that the pros out way the cons and some may complain about that is inhumane, but when we're talking about someone's life can we afford to be humane. Most likely innocent people will die but also some people will live because some else died. On a side note I come from a first world country where the prisoner sit in their nice cells watching TV or reading books and only have to go to 1 or 2 hour rehabilitation, I think all of them should be stripped down the the barest minimum living conditions so that they know that they're life outside is better than a life inside.

Actually, in the US, studies shown that life imprisonment ends up costing less than the death penalty due to long process of appeals and stuff.



#20
jfforums

jfforums

    Potato Spud

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Actually, in the US, studies shown that life imprisonment ends up costing less than the death penalty due to long process of appeals and stuff.

 

Well, thats show only that judiciary system in US have many flaws, in most countrys you have only few instances to appeal after first verdict so its not a problem. And i do not understand, thoes that mean those sentenced to lifetime inprisonment do not further appeal?

 

Anyway, i think this discussion got some weird turn into capital punishment vs. lifetime inprisonment instead CP vs rehabilitation...

Lifetime inprisonment in most countrys does not exist as such, its almost always considered as 20+ years in prison, so problem is what will convict do and how he will spent that time...

 

Rehabilitation should be process to return convict into usefull society member, and that is not definitely something that can/should be done as a 1-2 hours daily activity. I do not know for any country in world that have succesfull rehabilitation program (education or religion or anything else based), because most of the heavy criminals in prisons are the repetitive offenders. One of the reasons for that is that most of those rehabilitation programs are fake programs too, intended to keep quiet public and various NGO groups on that theme. Serious rehab program is quite costly, need plenty of trained persons to work on it for a long time, and should be followed with better help of society to receive rehabilitated convicts when they finish with serving the prison time. As it is not a case almost anywhere in world, its more fair solution to execute capital punishment for capital offenders then doing fake rehab programs while keeping convicts in prison for some time and waiting until they make next crime.

 

BTW, US have CP, but keep using that as a pretext to preaching to others about human rights, lets say to China for example. To me execution of CP in China is the example how that should be done - fast, in public, without long delay - to fulfill its meaning as a method to keep future offenders in check.