Batman vs Punisher philosophy debate

[Surtur]

Thats BS, it only costs so much because of all the legal bull you have to go through to do it.

A bullet to the head costs a damn sight less than all of someone's needs taken care for them for the rest of their life. And where has it been proven that everyone can be rehabilitated.

I tend to agree, at least when it comes to people who we are 100% sure are guilty. There is one thing that really bothered me about life in prison, and it didn't happen until recently. Basically, life in prison should be a punishment, plain and simple. The person should only be given the basic necessities in order to survive, food and water.

Something happened about a year ago that made me really question the justice system. Basically, there was a case where a man murdered his wife and child. He even flat out admitted it. Anyways, after the first weekend where he had been in prison there was an interview with the man's lawyer(I think). Someone asked him how the guy was doing in prison, and his answer was basically that the guy was doing ok..and that he was watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy. As soon as I heard that, I thought..what the fuck? This guy murdered his wife and child, and after a mere few days in prison..he's watching Lord of the Rings? Sure, I can see allowing certain prisoners to watch tv/movies..but guys who murder their family shouldn't be given anything besides food and water. If they don't like that? Too bad, I'm sure the people you killed didn't like being murdered either.

[abmccray]

I don't really see the point of pure punishment, though. It just slow torture. And that's just vengeance.

Either reform or remove, but torture? (locking someone in a box and removing anything but basic necessities in order to keep them alive) What does that serve in a non barbaric society?

[Surtur]

I don't really see the point of pure punishment, though. It just slow torture. And that's just vengeance.

Either reform or remove, but torture? (locking someone in a box and removing anything but basic necessities in order to keep them alive) What does that serve in a non barbaric society?

It's supposed to be punishment though, I'm not saying put him in complete isolation, but he sure as hell shouldn't be watching lord of the rings.

At the very least he should have to earn that privilege. It sure as hell shouldn't be given in a matter of days.

[The Drunkard Kid]

It's supposed to be punishment though, I'm not saying put him in complete isolation, but he sure as hell shouldn't be watching lord of the rings.

At the very least he should have to earn that privilege. It sure as hell shouldn't be given in a matter of days.

He was probably watching it in a common room, like how they're allowed to check out books and stuff. The punishment is primarily being locked away from most of the population, including your friends and loved ones (the ones that you haven't murdered anyways; having nothing to occupy your mind but the company of other criminals who are similarly lacking mental outlets would be very non-conducive to rehabilitation and would probably count as a mild form of torture.

Or maybe he's a Tolkien Classicist like Sharp, and this was the worst punishment that they could think of. He might be on a suicide watch as we speak.

[Surtur]

He was probably watching it in a common room, like how they're allowed to check out books and stuff. The punishment is primarily being locked away from most of the population, including your friends and loved ones (the ones that you haven't murdered anyways; having nothing to occupy your mind but the company of other criminals who are similarly lacking mental outlets would be very non-conducive to rehabilitation and would probably count as a mild form of torture.

Or maybe he's a Tolkien Classicist like Sharp, and this was the worst punishment that they could think of. He might be on a suicide watch as we speak.

Even so, it should be a privilege you need to actually earn.

Though really, I have no problem with it. If they are spending life in prison then rehabilitating them won't accomplish much. They might be a better person, but that really doesn't help anyone but the prisoner..who really doesn't deserve any help.

If the crime wasn't murder, and the person would eventually be released..then I say yes, rehabilitate them. They will at least have the chance to become productive members of society if they indeed do change.

I have zero sympathy for killers. They indeed should suffer, since most likely..the people who were close to the people killed will be suffering. Probably for the rest of their lives.

[abmccray]

Rehabilitation helps society, if that person can contribute to society. For instance, the famous film director who committed a heinous crime, is still a really talented director, and his subsequent films contributed greatly to artistic progression in the time he was free (and to anyone's knowledge, he has not committed a similar crime since). He was arrested recently, and I'm not sure what happened there, but the only thing is serves as a purpose to society at this point is less great films.

Locking him away and torturing him has no tangible benefit to society. Killing doesn't either. By your rule-set, Surtur, we as a society would have been denied the art that he produced just so he could sit away and be tortured for...vengeance? It has no utility - even as an emotional reaction, it has been proven to not have a soothing effect on the victims, necessarily.

I wouldn't normally discuss philosophical stances on here, but it's kind of relevant because that's how the (good) writers write Batman, and that's what part of his philosophy is based on and why he wants to save most of the criminals he punches in the face. Punisher would be the direct opposite, of course.

[The Drunkard Kid]

Locking him away has the purpose of preventing him from committing whatever crimes he was found guilty of. Treating him humanely and aiding in his rehabilitation (if possible), serves to make the prisons less of a hell hole and thus aides in the smoother rehabilitation of people that the justice system says may eventually be allowed out. Not to mention that, whether or not he deserves any respite, I wouldn't trust a justice system that employs people that are able to enact such unempathic measures in the first place.

And that's not even discounting the possibility that future revelations might reveal that the person in question is somehow innocent, or suffered some sort of legal insanity that wasn't discovered in the course of the initial investigation.

[Surtur]

Rehabilitation helps society, if that person can contribute to society. For instance, the famous film director who committed a heinous crime, is still a really talented director, and his subsequent films contributed greatly to artistic progression in the time he was free (and to anyone's knowledge, he has not committed a similar crime since). He was arrested recently, and I'm not sure what happened there, but the only thing is serves as a purpose to society at this point is less great films.

Sure, but I'm talking about people who will never be leaving prison.

Locking him away and torturing him has no tangible benefit to society. Killing doesn't either. By your rule-set, Surtur, we as a society would have been denied the art that he produced just so he could sit away and be tortured for...vengeance? It has no utility - even as an emotional reaction, it has been proven to not have a soothing effect on the victims, necessarily.

No..my ruleset is we should lock away murderers. My ruleset is if we're going to give them privileges..make them actually earn them.