Barbaric

[WAB]

Maybe they'll even give you a cat to hang out with!

It is a great waste of Public money. I think the inmates should be asked to pay for their upkeep.

In the land of Arizona, you have to pay to be in jail:

Copilot Search Branding

Do You Have to Pay to Be in Jail in Arizona?

Yes — in Arizona, you can be charged incarceration costs for state prison or county jail time, but the amount and who pays depends on the type of offense, the facility, and your ability to pay.

State Prison Costs

Under Arizona Revised Statutes § 31‑238, the Arizona Department of Corrections sets an annual cost of incarceration for anyone convicted in state court and committed to the state prison system

This cost reflects the actual state spending for the prisoner and is prorated for sentences of 334 days or less.

Time served before conviction counts toward the calculation.

The state can set off this cost against any claim or monetary obligation you owe, except 20% of any claim is exempt

If you win a monetary judgment against the state, part of the incarceration cost can be deducted from that judgment


County Jail Costs

For misdemeanor convictions in county jail, A.R.S. § 13‑804.01 requires the court to order you to reimburse the political subdivision (county) for incarceration costs

The court can set the amount based on the per‑diem cost of incarceration and your ability to pay.

These costs are typically per day and can be significant; for example, Maricopa County’s 2026–27 rates are $702.56 booking fee plus $145.86 per day for housing...

I can get a decent motel room for less than that per day. The fine and incarceration system in the US has become not only a moneymaking racket, but a system purposely designed so that the strong can and will exploit the weak. The actual intent of jail and prison time is that the most violent offenders will have an environment that literally enables the very behavior that may have gotten them locked up in the first place; and contrarily, that the meekest of people will be the most traumatised and endangered.

Most Americans literally do find that acceptable, and make light humor about it. Of course there are rotten prison systems in other countries, but this is the one I live in.

By the way, no, I do not live in prison. That was a bit of bad writing on my part. I meant I live in the US.

 

[DBT]

We separate them from society. We build prisons to hold and house them. No longer posing a threat to society, there is no need to execute them. Killing them is not justified when there is no threat.

Prisons, Prison Officers and upkeep of prisons and prisoners, people involved in serious crimes costs a huge amount of money. Why should that be paid from public funds which can otherwise be used for many useful purposes?
The number of prisoners in India in 2026 is around 600,000 (approximately, Duckduckgo has statistics up to 2023). The expense comes to about a billion USD per year (Wikipedia).

So human lives come down to a matter of cost and expediency? Why should society, the taxpayer, feed and house prisoners, let's just execute them? Morality has no place? Cost not ethics defining how we treat those who are deemed by our society or government to have no value?

 

[DBT]

So according to your point of view the expedient thing to do is kill them all? No need for jails or rehabilitation programs, even for those who may be helped?

Yeah, because they transgressed law. For other offenses, physical punishment is better than putting offenders in jails. Something like a daily dose of 20 lashes or electric shocks for 10 or 15 days (they can return to home every day). That way they would remember not to transgress law in future. Not necessary that this punishment be given by people, machines can be devised to do it.

Humans by nature are fallible, make poor decisions, act irrationally, lash out only to regret what they have done. There are examples where those who should be put away for a long time getting off lightly because they have wealth and power, while those at the bottom get harsh sentences for doing things that the powerful may consider to be routine, drugs, cheating, corporate theft, ruining lives for gain, etc...never mind those who were wrongly convicted.

Justice? I think not.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why should they be shown any mercy?!?

Because if you were accused of doing something such as that, you would demand mercy, even if you actually did it.

Which shows just how perverse such people are. They demand mercy yet do not show it themselves.

So you're calling yourself perverse as them, then, since here you are not showing mercy.

Everyone demands some level of mercy and the only way we will ever get it for ourselves in any measure of reliability is if we present it to others, because some day we may end up the "others" that today I say that we should extend mercy to.

The term "mercy" implies it is given, not demanded. The guilty may be given mercy. It should not obligatory. If it becomes obligatory then it ceases to be mercy and becomes duty.

Almost as of the correct outcome is to treat mercy like a duty rather than an option, and then we move from.tne world we didn't want to the world we each ask for in our own pleas for mercy.

Criminals love duty. It protects them from the full consequences of their actions.
Victims dislike duty. They are denied full justice.
Note I made a distinction between the victim's mercy and the state's mercy.

Victims don't get to decide what makes the world a better place. They don't get to decide what justice actually is, either. They can make their own demands, but of those demands would look any different if they were the criminal and someone else the victim, we have no obligation to provide those demands.

That's why.

I think it would matter to you if it were even just one person, and that one person happened to be you.

Provided I keep my nose clean that is most unlikely to happen.

Your nose is already dirty.

 

[aupmanyav]

Morality has no place?

Punishing wrongdoers is not immoral.

Humans by nature are fallible, make poor decisions, act irrationally, lash out only to regret what they have done. There are examples where those who should be put away for a long time getting off lightly because they have wealth and power, while those at the bottom get harsh sentences for doing things that the powerful may consider to be routine, drugs, cheating, corporate theft, ruining lives for gain, etc...never mind those who were wrongly convicted.

What is the value of regret to one who has been brutally raped, disfigured for all his/her life in an acid attack, murder, robbery of one's life savings? The rich, in particular, should not be let off (happens in India when Ferraries and Lamborghinis kill people; or the rich and politicians loot public money).

The Indian Supreme Court is too soft. Political corruption is better controlled under Modi government but is still a problem in states ruled by opposition (mainly the corrupt "Gandhi dynasty" Congress).

So you're calling yourself perverse as them, then, since here you are not showing mercy.

It is perverse to show mercy to the wrongdoer.

 

[aupmanyav]

It is perverse to show mercy to the wrongdoer.

I should have said it is not correct/wise to show mercy to one who habitually engages in serious crimes.

We have criminals with over 100 cases pending in the court. Legions of lawyers try for their bail (including my elder grandson, a Criminal Law practitioner). Corrupt police officials delay their cases. Judges give them bail as their cases linger. Keeping them in jail being an infringement of their personal freedom. Such people continue to be involved in crimes. I consider such a British system of law that we have adopted, as faulted.
Bail: Monetary guarantee.
"As of recent data, there are over 1,000 criminals in India with more than 100 cases registered against them. This highlights significant concerns regarding repeat offenders within the criminal justice system." DuckAssist

 

[DBT]

Morality has no place?

Punishing wrongdoers is not immoral.

The issue is the double standard of teaching that killing is wrong for any reason other than self defence, that it is immoral and illegal, yet a government may reserve the right to kill for convenience, expediency or setting an example, thereby contradicting its own professed moral standards and laws that apply to the general population, but not to itself.

Is that not hypocrisy? A double standard where might makes right. We have many examples of how that can go wrong.

Humans by nature are fallible, make poor decisions, act irrationally, lash out only to regret what they have done. There are examples where those who should be put away for a long time getting off lightly because they have wealth and power, while those at the bottom get harsh sentences for doing things that the powerful may consider to be routine, drugs, cheating, corporate theft, ruining lives for gain, etc...never mind those who were wrongly convicted.

What is the value of regret to one who has been brutally raped, disfigured for all his/her life in an acid attack, murder, robbery of one's life savings? The rich, in particular, should not be let off (happens in India when Ferraries and Lamborghinis kill people; or the rich and politicians loot public money).

The Indian Supreme Court is too soft. Political corruption is better controlled under Modi government but is still a problem in states ruled by opposition (mainly the corrupt "Gandhi dynasty" Congress).

Aren't we supposed to be better than the people that do wrong? Would you have them crucified in public to set an example?

 

[Jarhyn]

I should have said it is not correct/wise to show mercy to one who habitually engages in serious crimes

Oh, how much rope you give for your own hanging here when you allow such precise classifications as "habitually" and "serious"...

You do realize that some folks out for your blood might consider some "habitual" actions quite "serious" indeed when the only real "crime" you have committed is being an idiot.

Of course, we all know how quickly you conservative shills turn around your tune when you end up on the other side of things.

Seriously, if there are only 1000 criminals in idia and only 100 cases against them with a population of over a billion people, that makes it literally a one-in-a-million problem. I don't believe that in the least, but it would be an excellent problem to have.

The fact that this was stated seriously is actually kind of comical, though.

What are you, even? India's swing at a Barbos clone?

 

[aupmanyav]

The issue is the double standard of teaching that killing is wrong for any reason other than self defense, that it is immoral and illegal, yet a government may reserve the right to kill for convenience, expediency or setting an example, thereby contradicting its own professed moral standards and laws that apply to the general population, but not to itself.

Is that not hypocrisy? A double standard where might makes right. We have many examples of how that can go wrong.

The government does not decide this. The judges (who are not chosen by government in India - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_system) should decide this. Of course, the laws will be made by a 2/3 majority of representatives of people chosen in a fair democratic manner (Lok Sabha, Parliament). It must also be the majority view in the the Upper House (Rajya Sabha, Senate). Morality is subjective.

Aren't we supposed to be better than the people that do wrong? Would you have them crucified in public to set an example?

Yeah, why not.

 

[aupmanyav]

Oh, how much rope you give for your own hanging here when you allow such precise classifications as "habitually" and "serious"...

You do realize that some folks out for your blood might consider some "habitual" actions quite "serious" indeed when the only real "crime" you have committed is being an idiot.

Of course, we all know how quickly you conservative shills turn around your tune when you end up on the other side of things.

Seriously, if there are only 1000 criminals in India and only 100 cases against them with a population of over a billion people, that makes it literally a one-in-a-million problem. I don't believe that in the least, but it would be an excellent problem to have.

The fact that this was stated seriously is actually kind of comical, though.

Yeah, If I do something which deserves this, then me too. Nobody should be above law.
It is not for 'some folks' to decide this. It must be decided by the Court.
You consider the stats insignificant, I would not want even one such person in the society.
You might consider it comical, but faced with the responsibility of welfare of 1.477+ billion people, I consider it a necessity.
Sorry that India does not have such laws, and allows 500 people on death row and some 72,000 people with life imprisonment to live, wasting public money.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, how much rope you give for your own hanging here when you allow such precise classifications as "habitually" and "serious"...

You do realize that some folks out for your blood might consider some "habitual" actions quite "serious" indeed when the only real "crime" you have committed is being an idiot.

Of course, we all know how quickly you conservative shills turn around your tune when you end up on the other side of things.

Seriously, if there are only 1000 criminals in India and only 100 cases against them with a population of over a billion people, that makes it literally a one-in-a-million problem. I don't believe that in the least, but it would be an excellent problem to have.

The fact that this was stated seriously is actually kind of comical, though.

Yeah, If I do something which deserves this, then me too. Nobody should be above law.

You say that now, but for some reason very few agree with this same point of view when reality comes knocking.

It is not for 'some folks' to decide this. It must be decided by the Court.

So, "some folks". Because the court is just "some folks".

You consider the stats insignificant, I would not want even one such person in the society.

For me, the only such people I do not want one such of in the society are child molesters and people who will let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The price of not allowing a single one is to treat us all as criminals just to be sure. Let's start with you.

You might consider it comical, but faced with the responsibility of welfare of 1.477+ billion people, I consider it a necessity.

I consider you an idiot because...

Sorry that India does not have such laws, and allows 500 people on death row and some 72,000 people with life imprisonment to live, wasting public money.

...You have no sense of scale.

You remind me of Emily Lake when she argued that we should allow draconian voter ID laws that prevent large segments of the population at all so as to turn the already-negligible amounts of already-controlled fraud (fewer than 40 cases per election) to zero.

"Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good".

And never mind that Indian law gives rapists and other perverts a slap on the wrist, given how many acid attacks happen there every year, not to mention the underreporting of rape due to social pressures.

What I consider a necessity is better education and socialization in childhood than whatever the fuck India has going on.

 

[unapologetic]

Especially if the only thing on TV was a channel of the collected speeches of Donald Trump. Clockwork Orange punishment.

FauxNews of course.

I think the inmates should be asked to pay for their upkeep.

How are they to earn the money to pay for their upkeep?

Some states rent out their prisoners for construction and farm work.
In NY there are prison print shops that do outside work.
When I was working in a print shop in NY, I signed a petition to stop that. (it was competition for the shop I worked at) I never heard how that turned out.

 

[aupmanyav]

So, "some folks". Because the court is just "some folks". The price of not allowing a single one is to treat us all as criminals just to be sure. Let's start with you.

They are not just "some folks". They are people whom the Indian Constitution has given the right to judge. I hope you would not mind that we respect our Constitution.
OK, let them start with me, though I am not such a great person to deserve this honor. I agree that I have done things which will earn me at least the lashes, if not the guillotine.

I consider you an idiot because...

That is not a problem.

You remind me of Emily Lake when she argued that we should allow draconian voter ID laws that prevent large segments of the population at all so as to turn the already-negligible amounts of already-controlled fraud (fewer than 40 cases per election) to zero.

We have a much larger problem of fraaudulent voters in the region of 10 to 20%. That is why we are engaged in a revision of voter lists. eople who are benefited by fraudulent votes are opposing that. Mostly, illegal Bangladesh immigrants.

And never mind that Indian law gives rapists and other perverts a slap on the wrist, given how many acid attacks happen there every year, not to mention the underreporting of rape due to social pressures.

A soft Court and corrupt police, that is why I want stricter punishment. The police which permits the criminal to escape should be considered a participant of the crime.

 

[aupmanyav]

Some states rent out their prisoners for construction and farm work.
In NY there are prison print shops that do outside work.
When I was working in a print shop in NY, I signed a petition to stop that. (it was competition for the shop I worked at) I never heard how that turned out.

Indian criminals will just vanish. Not something that can work in India.
India also has such work shops of various kinds where prisoners can earn money.
If other competition from other print shops was OK, why should competition from a prison print shop be bad?
But what I say relates to India. I do not know the position in NY.

 

[DBT]

The issue is the double standard of teaching that killing is wrong for any reason other than self defense, that it is immoral and illegal, yet a government may reserve the right to kill for convenience, expediency or setting an example, thereby contradicting its own professed moral standards and laws that apply to the general population, but not to itself.

Is that not hypocrisy? A double standard where might makes right. We have many examples of how that can go wrong.

The government does not decide this. The judges (who are not chosen by government in India - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_system) should decide this. Of course, the laws will be made by a 2/3 majority of representatives of people chosen in a fair democratic manner (Lok Sabha, Parliament). It must also be the majority view in the the Upper House (Rajya Sabha, Senate). Morality is subjective.

Aren't we supposed to be better than the people that do wrong? Would you have them crucified in public to set an example?

Yeah, why not.

Dealing with the law, public safety, etc, the judicial system is a part of society and its governance even if the elected government plays no part in the court. Parliament does pass laws and regulations, including legalising the death penalty.

The point of contention was the moral implications of execution. The morality of executing prisoners that no longer pose a threat to public safety.

 

[Jarhyn]

They are not just "some folks". They are people whom the Indian Constitution has given the right to judge

No, they are still just some folks. Lucky, well placed, wealthy, or some other stupid thing people use to trick others into thinking they aren't just some folks when they are...

I hope you would not mind that we respect our Constitution.

I do mind when it says stupid shit, like that you have to respect someone because they tell you you have to die.

We have a much larger problem of fraaudulent voters in the region of 10 to 20%

Sounds like a YOU problem. I didn't even bring that up in relation to you (it was a random description of a random bad behavior like yours, but you decided to volunteer and behave the same way!)

corrupt police, that is why I want stricter punishmen

Ah yes, so that the corrupt police can blackmail you even more thoroughly with punishment you clearly don't deserve and execute you for pissing them off. Great idea. You're really not fighting those "idiot" claims.

 

[aupmanyav]

The morality of executing prisoners that no longer pose a threat to public safety.

As I said morality is subjective. These prisoners are not a threat to society as long as they are in prison for which public money is spent. They may be a threat if they are given any remission. A life sentence practically is for 14 years. They can then apply for remission and police are happy to certify good conduct if the necessary bribe is given to them.

 

[aupmanyav]

No, they are still just some folks. Lucky, well placed, wealthy, or some other stupid thing people use to trick others into thinking they aren't just some folks when they are...

Judges in India could have earned more money if they practiced as lawyers. It is the prestige that attracts them. The Supreme Court judges have spent a long time as judges of the lower courts with distinction and are promoted by four senior most of the Supreme Court judges and the Chief Justice of India. It is not an easy call.

Sounds like a YOU problem. I didn't even bring that up in relation to you (it was a random description of a random bad behavior like yours, but you decided to volunteer and behave the same way!)

It is a problem that India faces. fraudulent voter registration, impersonation, dead voters come up, voters who have changed their locations come up, Muslims women in full burqa who resist identification attempt, illegal immigrants. Opposition parties object to a list of citizens. And when the lists are updated, as is being done now, the parties that benefit by these fraudulent practices start agitations (as they are going on in India at the moment.

Ah yes, so that the corrupt police can blackmail you even more thoroughly with punishment you clearly don't deserve and execute you for pissing them off. Great idea. You're really not fighting those "idiot" claims.

Yes, quite possible. That is why strictness at all levels is required, and those who engage in wrong practices also need to be punished.
Indians need to be taught to abide by laws.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is the prestige that attracts them

Got it: big heads and ulterior motives.

You're not beating the rap that they're just "folks" at the end of the day.

It is a problem that India faces. fraudulent voter registration, impersonation, dead voters come up

It is a problem that India creates for itself.

Yes, quite possible

LOL, that's NOT a good excuse for "strictness".

"Strictness" in such corrupt situations only opens the door for what any tabletop gamer will recognize as "lawful evil": applying strictness only when it benefits the grift and the appearance of the moments of strictness give visual cover for the laxities.

Creating laws that don't treat people like trash and statistics, laws that lean towards treating humans as human, that's how you end situations where barbarism and corruption reigns.

Its the more totalitarian and authoritarian societies that we can observe as the most brutal and barbaric.

 

[DBT]

The morality of executing prisoners that no longer pose a threat to public safety.

As I said morality is subjective. These prisoners are not a threat to society as long as they are in prison for which public money is spent. They may be a threat if they are given any remission. A life sentence practically is for 14 years. They can then apply for remission and police are happy to certify good conduct if the necessary bribe is given to them.

If our society, government and judicial system deems it to be illegal and immoral to kill someone for any reason other than self defence, then the same standards apply to the government that sets these moral and legal standards......which, if it is to applied without hypocrisy, does not permit the government to take someone who is locked away, no longer a threat to the public out an execute them for reasons of cost, expediency or to set an example.