I’m not one who believes in punishment for criminals even for some of the most horrific crimes against children.  

My first impulse for anyone who hurts a child is to inflict as much pain and for as long a period as possible for perpetrators of such crimes, but if we  allow ourselves to revert to “revenge” style punishment we are becoming the people we despise.

I do believe in restraint.  A person who is unable to act within the boundaries of acceptable social behavior should be restrained (imprisoned), for life if necessary, but not punished.  Punishment is also an act of violence and negates the high moral ground on which such philosophies arise.

What do you think?

I can't say I condone Capital punishment but.... there have been times and crimes that without a shadow of a doubt the person charged with the crime did the crime and it has been so heinous and evil that I have thought 'they should just kill them'. Martin Bryant, the Port Arthur Mass Murderer is one of those.
I believe that killing is a sin and as such should not be punished with more killing.
Not sure if it was Mahatma Ghandi  who said 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. You would hope that those people who to commit the worst of the worst crimes are not going to be incarcerated in relative luxury. I also do not agree with the men who murdered Anita Cobby so viciously being in protective custody in prison. I say, people like them should be left in the general population of a prison and let the criminals take care of their own. I know it sounds inhuman but it would save the tax payers a lot of money. In America they have the 'three strikes and you're out' policy which I think should be implemented here for juveniles and adults alike. Maybe it would make them think twice about committing that second or third crime.

I think that 'restraint' can still be seen as 'punishment', it's a matter of semantics.

I agree that the judicial system should not be driven by revenge/retaliation responses, and there is certainly no worries of that happening here in Australia! The problem here seems to be marrying an appropriate length of incarceration (restraint) to the crime committed.

Quoted Text

Punishment is also an act of violence

I would disagree with this statement. 'Violence' is a derivative of the word 'violate' (Online Etymology Dictionary) As violate means "Act in disregard of laws and rules" (WordWeb definition), punishment would not fit into this definition and thus cannot be likened with the act that broke the rules in the first place.

Personally, I think the terms being issued to offenders in this country are ludicrous to say the least. And it's not a matter of the victims feeling justified that the offenders got what they deserved... it's a matter of the value society places on the things being violated, whether it be a child's innocence, the safety and sanctity within one's own house for their family, the right to keep and maintain possession of what a person has worked to own, or even life itself.

Violence, n. 1. rough force in action: the violence of the wind.  2. rough or injurious action or treatment: to die by violence  3. any unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power. 4 a violent act or proceeding.  5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language;  fury; intensity; severity. 6 a distortion of meaning or fact.

The above is a direct quote from the Macquarie Concise Dictionary.  By any interpretation or definition, violence is still very applicable to criminal Punishment.  The word “violence” is clearly applied to instances of physical or psychological injury.

Why did you try to make an issue of semantics by narrowing your definition of "violence" to a lesser and seldom used intrepetation?  Definition 6 is interesting considering your post don’t you think?

I would like to refer you to violentia & violentus

We all make mistakes in our use of language; grammar, spelling, caps, etc. and probably none more so than myself, but if you are going to make an issue of language you better get it right!

Quoted from SuziH

Not sure if it was Mahatma Ghandi who said 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'.

It was Suzi, and it is a very insightful observation by Gandhi ...IMHO.

It is quoted in the bible “an eye for an eye” and many so-called Christians readily accept and pursue this philosophy - but it is ironic, that Jesus, on whom Christianity is founded, renounced this philosophy and proposed forgiveness and restraint instead.

I am also of the feeling that I would like to take a blowtorch to anyone who touched my daughter - but I am also of the strong opinion that we should not surrender to the primitive urge of revenge and I see a lot of merit in the philosophy of Jesus and Gandhi, among others.

It's a very strong urge to resist cactus.

It is quite obvious why revenge is not a good idea because creates larger problems from smaller ones and perpetuates it.  But to a point restaint feels just as pointless.  What is the point of doing things wrong if a person doesn't get a chance to learn from them.  Obviously we need a system like we have to deter people from commiting crimes in the first place and protect people in extreme circumstances, but the system serves little cause once the crime is commited.  You take a person, say to them you made the hugest mistake of your life, here is 30 years to think about it.  Sometimes i think it would be better if they just put them in a room and let everyone close to the victims loose on them until they saw the other side of it so clearly that they wouldnt do it again.  At least in a way it would give them a chance to go on with life and become a better person, rather than get locked away with other trouble makers to become more of a trouble maker.

Essentially the system is there for the extreme cases where the person would reoffend.  Or would consider the punishment when commiting the crime.  In reality most people have morals when it comes to serious crimes and wouldn't plan to do the things they go to jail for whether they are against the law or not.  Occasionally these people get pushed over the edge and that is what you see on the news.  Most murderers aren't psycho killers and the death penalty in America does little to deter them.  If anything the death penalty makes the killing of people more normal in society because the legal system can do it.  Could see someone thinking "They fried that bad guy in the electric chair, my husband or wife isn't much better, if they have the right to get rid of bad people, why shouldn't I."  Its a psycho step, but anyone who is in a situation where they are oppressed or feeling like there is no other way out, could easily come up with it.  To a point the best thing we could do to stop crimes would be propaganda.  Like keep really quiet on the small murders and only report the big ones.  So it becomes a huge thing if it happens at all.  That way peoples first instinct would be i can't do that, it is wrong.  Rather than others are doing it, why shouldn't I.

A New York Times survey, 2000, found that in the past 20 years the homicide rate in states with the death penalty was 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without it. The FBI Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002 said the murder rate in the US South increased by 2.1 percent while that in the Northeast decreased by almost five percent. The South accounts for 82 percent of all the executions since 1976; the Northeast accounts for less than one percent.

It has long been accepted that punishment has never really deterred crime - it's only use is to satisfy our primeval urge for revenge.

Quoted from mein_kampf

...thing we could do to stop crimes would be propaganda.  Like keep really quiet on the small murders and only report the big ones.  So it becomes a huge thing if it happens at all.  That way peoples first instinct would be i can't do that, it is wrong.  Rather than others are doing it, why shouldn't I.

This has merit, however, I doubt the Media would cooperate.

Quoted from "cactus"

Why did you try to make an issue of semantics by narrowing your definition of "violence" to a lesser and seldom used intrepetation?

Lesser and seldom because it doesn't quite fit with how you are wanting to interpret the word within this discussion? It's still a meaning of the word. George Orwell's world of eliminating definitions from the language because they don't fit the line of thought hasn't begun yet!  

Quoted Text

Definition 6 is interesting considering your post don’t you think?

Interesting indeed! Does that mean your inference that my post, being 'a distortion of meaning or fact', is therefore violent?!! Now there's an interesting interpretation.

But on the issue of definition, going back to your original post you stated:

Quoted Text

I’m not one who believes in punishment for criminals...

and then went on to say:

Quoted Text

A person...  ...should be restrained (imprisoned), for life if necessary, but not punished.

How is imprisonment not punishment? Now if the argument for that is intention, then that lies with the beholder. The person being incarcerated will still see his/her restriction of freedom as punishment.

As a footnote, definition #3 of your Macquarie Concise Dictionary reference is remarkably similar to the "Act in disregard of laws and rules" definition that I referenced.

Fair enough with most of what's been said but, I think, that's apart from using the damn dictionary.  I think looking at the origin and differant meanings of a word isn't very relevant when having a discussion about something in the respect to how it is being used today.  It doesn't matter how ancient greek or arabic people used a differant meaning of the word "capable" if the question is "Are we today capable of using a telephone?"
Pulling out dictionary definitions is usually not necissary and usually done to hit below the belt.  I think in this case it's just been unnecissary and hasn't produced much.  All who disagree, point out my misspellings.  

I think unscrupulous people who are not disabled but who park in disabled parking bays should be given a paralysis drug for about a month or so!

I saw a woman get out of a car in a Disabled spot who was obviously very healthy until she saw me giving her the “evil eye” when she was suddenly struck with a limp.

Gee, the mind boggles at all the do-gooders on this forum that do not believe in the death penalty.............what about the Birnies, david and Catherine........(David just hung himself in prison,thank goodness)......In 1985, I think it was they raped, mutilated and killed 4 women, there are 4 others they are suspected of murdering...
Catherine Birnie has her own cottage in a womans prison here in WA, TV,video, own computer, 3 meals a day etc..The inmates call her queen bee, give her birthday parties and presents, she is living a life of luxury, all supported by the hard working taxpayer...she is coming up for parole in 2 years...........
not a bad life for a mass murderer.........she should have been executed as soon as she was proven guitly......

I think that people shouldn't even begin to support the idea until they first decide that they don't have any problems with personally taking a knife and cutting out the guts, or taking a gun and blowing the back of the head off, or whatever of a complete stranger or a loved one... or don't have a problem with it happenning to themselves in error... and are willing to carry out the execution of a stranger even when people who don't even know the person object to to it being done.

This issue just goes to show that people cannot decide what to do with those who seriously offend society.
We put them in prisons . .(which are overcrowded). .and the taxpayer gets the bill.

They should not be allowed to become such a burden . . re-training and hard work to pay their way should be expected. . . and very few 'fun trappings' like they get in some prisons.  Make a sentence just that. . a set time in prison . . not this 20 years and then parolled in 2 junk.  

@ a previous poster who said Jesus overturned Jewish law by saying. . 'just forgive' . . that is not quite true.
He recognised the need to 'pay back to Caesar what is due' . . and some rulers have the power of the death penalty . .they are accountable to the creator for how they use/misuse it.  That premise stops the criminals ruling the show. . . (just look at your front door and windows and see who are the ones behind bars today) .