Instigator / Con
0
1309
rating
271
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#4462
You can suggest an alternative to prisons that works and completely replaces prisons making prisons unnecessary
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
5
After 5 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
5
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#1
I believe that you cant, because:
Murderers, rapists and thieves are best managed by prison.
They are allowed to live, and harm to society is reduced by placing them in prison.
Pro
#2
So some suggestions as the topic says , here they are.
Implementing a law that all punishments result in the death penalty.
Society experiences the reduction in harm not withstanding those that perpetrated it.
Next, admitting perpetrators to institutes that are not technically prisons.
Within these institutions, there are several elective programs that are administered by supreme court ruling.
One , a full service lobotomization.
Second, a full shock therapy to alter behaviors or induce medications that may cause lethargic but sedative like states.
Another suggestion is the military . Of course the military officers will have to remain armed at all times .
One suggestion which is a real life occurrence is house arrest. These people can be surveilled , supervised but they're technically not in a penal prison.
I highly dispute that prisons are the best way to manage criminals absolutely or in general. If it was the best way, there'd be no prison breaks.
It's just the best we can do right now. But not the best period for all time.
Round 2
Con
#3
Implementing a law that all punishments result in the death penalty. Society experiences the reduction in harm not withstanding those that perpetrated it.
If this was done, over 1 million people would die in USA.
While there are some crimes where death penalty seems justified, it still doesnt apply to majority of cases.
Applying death penalty for every crime would kill much more people than prisons do.
Therefore, prisons are necessary to reduce deaths and respect the rights of criminals. It is better to have less deaths than more deaths.
Next, admitting perpetrators to institutes that are not technically prisons. Within these institutions, there are several elective programs that are administered by supreme court ruling.
I would say that these are just different type of prisons.
One , a full service lobotomization.
What the hell.
Thats disgusting.
In fact, that is so cruel that it makes prisons look humane in comparison.
Here is a video of lobotomization. Warning: Its more disgusting than any horror movie you have seen. Cant unsee or forget.
Second, a full shock therapy to alter behaviors or induce medications that may cause lethargic but sedative like states.
Making people prisoners in their own body isnt any better than putting them in prison.
Another suggestion is the military . Of course the military officers will have to remain armed at all times .
You would put criminals in military prison, which is still a prison.
One suggestion which is a real life occurrence is house arrest. These people can be surveilled , supervised but they're technically not in a penal prison.
So that too is a prison, its just that their house becomes the prison which they cant leave.
I highly dispute that prisons are the best way to manage criminals absolutely or in general. If it was the best way, there'd be no prison breaks.
Prison breaks are rare and dont negate the fact that prisons are the best way to deal with criminals.
Pro
#4
"Applying death penalty for every crime would kill much more people than prisons do.
Therefore, prisons are necessary to reduce deaths and respect the rights of criminals. It is better to have less deaths than more deaths."
Being that it appears that what is "best" or "better" is less deaths, less harm and people live according to you and this topic, who's to say the death penalty will be applied?
If people know that if the law is broken, their neck is broken. So the death penalty can serve as a deterrent. Many people commit crimes knowing that if they can survive in prison, make connections in prison, setup more illegal operations in prison, collect infractions then breaking out of prisons to do more crimes, there's not much discouragement.
But knowing by just sending a death threat, passing a robbery note, burglarizing, whatever will not get you a prison sentence because penal prisons don't exist but get you a death sentence, maybe some second thoughts arise.
Folks only go but so far to avoid the death penalty but will enter a plea .
"I would say that these are just different type of prisons."
This is an ad hoc response. You didn't define penal prisons as also being mental institutions prior to . On top of that, the freedom difference is important. You didn't establish a fixated standard of what constitutes freedom with a prisoner and patient. If you leave it arbitrary, we both can just commit ad hoc fallacies after awhile.
I therefore submit this also as a valid suggestion according to the topic.
"What the hell.
Thats disgusting.
In fact, that is so cruel that it makes prisons look humane in comparison.
Here is a video of lobotomization. Warning: Its more disgusting than any horror movie you have seen. Cant unsee or forget."
Another fallacy, argumentum ad fastidium, strike two.
An appeal to disgust from you. I can do the same thing with prisons. The things that go on in prisons, the brutality, violence, sexual violence, drugs.
Gotta do better than that.
"Making people prisoners in their own body isnt any better than putting them in prison."
This is another ad hoc point. You prior to this did not say a change in behavior mentally and physically constitutes the same as the penal prison system . The issue is in defining what freedom amounts to. If a person is rehabilitated regardless of the method use, are they imprisoned to live in a law abiding fashion?
"So that too is a prison, its just that their house becomes the prison which they cant leave."
Yes you're pretty much conflating at this point. You're saying a bunch of things constitute as prison.
The thing is, would the supreme court agree with you?
Let's go down this road of conflation.
We're all in prison. We have what we call the monetary prison system. There's is absolutely nothing free and you're not free to do anything without payment obligation.
There are those that definitely believe all people of "color " are prisoners of the "white" supremacy system.
It comes down to what constitutes penal prison. Let us just keep the penal prison system to mean a place called Alcatraz. Why not ? Let's leave it there.
"Prison breaks are rare and dont negate the fact that prisons are the best way to deal with criminals."
Doesn't matter if it's rare. It's the best way so far. Not the best absolutely. If it was absolute, it be perfect. Absolutely NO rarities or occasions whatsoever.
But this point is besides the topic. Let's get back on topic.
Reevaluate what a penal prison system is before moving forward.
Round 4
Con
#7
I think I have to concede here, because I didnt define prison at the start. Plus, the alternative of being sedated was provided, which does sound better than the current prison system. Even if we assume that being sedated is prison, it is better than current prison system, which was in a sense the point of the topic.
Round 5
Con
#9
I have nothing more to add. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on alternatives. I consider the current prison system to be evil, and alternatives obviously exist, so in my view prison system should be abolished in its current form.
Pro
#10
"I consider the current prison system to be evil, "
Your consideration is correct. Appropriately so, an evil system for molesters , murderers, rapists whom are what by many considered EVIL.
This can be another topic which can be discussed the necessary deterrent for criminals. If all penal prison institutions were mitigated and comfortable, would crime increase?
It's necessary that the punishment contains no incentive or else who you thought was all law abiding break their track records to have a field day at their state pen.
Well peace be .
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Although Mall leaned too heavily on fallacies by my standards, context to objection in con's use in fallacies were thought provoking. Also challenged b.k. given statement.
Con Concedes too.
Would have liked to see more from con.
Should do one where both sides produce a "better system," because b.k. said they already believed current system is failing. Hard to argue for something you dont believe in.
If both pro and con argued for their own alternative, this would deliver more of a debate
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con forfeited round 3 and conceded in round 4.
The topic deals with making prisons unnecessary.
So yes, as long as it is best for prisons to exist, prisons are necessary.
Course you can, it is just it is not guaranteed to be a good alternative. I could just replace prisons with everyone with even the slightest of the petty crimes with instant liquidization on the spot so prisons are replaced with death penalty at large. It is suggested by me. Can it work? Technically yes. Does it? Maybe not, but still fits the topic.
I thought we could discuss if there is alternative to prisons.