I dont care where you go but you cant stay here

[blackmage_nuke]

So punishment is always, 10 years this or execution that, but why dont the government deal out banishments any more like in the old days?
I dont see a reason banishment from a country or state or whatever shouldnt be an option in certain cases. If you kick someone out of your country, and never let them back in then theyre someone elses problem, and if that country doesnt accept them they'll just have to wonder around until they find one that does, or get thrown into a detention centre or something.
This obviously isnt a punishment for smaller crimes but there's probably somewhere it would fit. And take care of any over crowded jail problems.
Maybe theres a chance they will be reaccepted after a certain time if they want to come back.

And when theyre banished take away anything they have on them at the time for good measure. Including clothes. and give them unremovable tags so that people can know who they are. If they are trying to find a way to restart thier life they would have to work from scratch. Which would be hard when someone performs a background check on you and finds out your an illegal immigrant or a criminal or whatever.

So what do you think of my idea?
Am i crazy?
Are you morally outraged at my suggestion?
Is there already a form of banishment but now its dressed up with a new fancier word?

Im not too sure of it myself, there are probably alot of gaping holes ive missed.

[Tallulah]

It's been done. British convicts were taken to Australia.

It didn't work.

[blackmage_nuke]

It's been done. British convicts were taken to Australia.

It didn't work.

Well i bet it made Britain a slightly better place

and they wouldnt all be banished simultaneously

Also in that case they were still under 'british' rule when they got moved, my plan implies that they are no longer the problem of the country they are banished from

[~*~Celes~*~]

Actually, banishment isn't such a bad idea to me.

That is, until all the banished people of the world get together and form an international terrorist group D=

[Tallulah]

Well i bet it made Britain a slightly better place



Don't you believe it, hon! :D We still have 'chavs'!

Plus a lot of the 'criminals' were sent there for silly things and first offences. :(

[theundeadhero]

I'll ban you!

[Old Manus]

It's called the Middle East.

[scrumpleberry]

Actually, banishment isn't such a bad idea to me.

That is, until all the banished people of the world get together and form an international terrorist group D=

Therein lies the problem. WE SHOULD ALL GO TO MARS.

[prayzer]

Banishment to me is just giving them the chance to take their criminal ways somewhere else. Most of the criminals nowadays are criminals out of habit, need, greed, or just unconcern for other people. I am all for the death penalty and the chain-gangs that used to be. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. If you take away someone's right to live, you automatically give up your right to live as well. For lesser crimes they should have to do some hard time and some hard work. If they dont like prison, they'll more than likely make sure they don't go back.

[ReloadPsi]

If you kick someone out of your country, and never let them back in then theyre someone elses problem.

That's just it, why should they have to be someone else's problem?

[The Ceej]

I don't know about banishment, but we do need some harsher penalties. Other countries have low crime rates when they have harsh penalties. Yeah, there will be uproar from the ACLU and other activist groups, but they'll soon calm down when these punishments are no longer necessary.

The constitution prevents "cruel and unusual" punishment. This will make it hard to get a new penalty started. However, once it becomes the standard, it will no longer be cruel and unusual. It will be cruel and usual, which is not protected against in the constitution.

I'm agains torture as a means of extracting information from someone who may or may not know it with no reason to suspect he's invovled in a crime and no charges filed. However, if a person has been found guilty by a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt, I see no reason why certain forms of torture cannot be his punishment. It makes no sense to just hold him in a building and keep him entertained there for a few years while I pay for it with my tax dollars only to have him come out and offend again. I bet you dollars to donuts, if he's tortured as his punishment, he won't offend again.

So, in conclusion, I'm not for banishment as a form of punishment because I don't know how well it would work, but I'm for torture and other forms of cruel punishment.

[blackmage_nuke]

Banishment to me is just giving them the chance to take their criminal ways somewhere else. Most of the criminals nowadays are criminals out of habit, need, greed, or just unconcern for other people. I am all for the death penalty and the chain-gangs that used to be. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. If you take away someone's right to live, you automatically give up your right to live as well. For lesser crimes they should have to do some hard time and some hard work. If they dont like prison, they'll more than likely make sure they don't go back.If they become a criminal somewhere else then they'll just get banished from there, and if they keep committing crimes they will eventually have nowhere to go.



If you kick someone out of your country, and never let them back in then theyre someone elses problem.

That's just it, why should they have to be someone else's problem?Well considering how international drug smugglers and illegal immigrants become the problem of the country they go to and aernt sent back or anything i dont see why it shouldnt apply to other crimes

[Iceglow]

This exists. It's not called banishment these days but Deportation. When a criminal is deported they are sent "home" regardless of the fact they could arrive, leave the airport and be gunned down. Deportees are not allowed legally back in to the country they got deported from (unless there are extenuating circumstances) this is kinda passing on your problems the main issue with this is human rights groups believe that we shouldn't deport if we know they will be killed. Oh and for a look at how it can turn out and go wrong, just take a look at the infamous MS13 street gang I saw a documentary on them the other night something like 6 countries they've been seen in now?

[Tavrobel]

Maybe the perpetrator should've tried harder not to get caught.

[rubah]

The united states kinda has this thing where they are reluctant to exile or strip citizenship of countries. It might have to do with the fact that a lot of our ancestors were exiles in the first place!

(I'm sure Australia is the same way ;D)

[Araciel]

Purged to Siberia.

[Imperfectionist]

Banishment to me is just giving them the chance to take their criminal ways somewhere else. Most of the criminals nowadays are criminals out of habit, need, greed, or just unconcern for other people. I am all for the death penalty and the chain-gangs that used to be. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. If you take away someone's right to live, you automatically give up your right to live as well. For lesser crimes they should have to do some hard time and some hard work. If they dont like prison, they'll more than likely make sure they don't go back.

But is it right to show people that killing is wrong by killing the killer?

And back on topic, where would these banished people go? To another country? Why would another country knowingly accept criminals? I don't think it'd work...

[blackmage_nuke]

Banishment to me is just giving them the chance to take their criminal ways somewhere else. Most of the criminals nowadays are criminals out of habit, need, greed, or just unconcern for other people. I am all for the death penalty and the chain-gangs that used to be. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. If you take away someone's right to live, you automatically give up your right to live as well. For lesser crimes they should have to do some hard time and some hard work. If they dont like prison, they'll more than likely make sure they don't go back.

But is it right to show people that killing is wrong by killing the killer?

And back on topic, where would these banished people go? To another country? Why would another country knowingly accept criminals? I don't think it'd work...
Well if another country doesnt accept them they have nowhere to go and pretty much end up wondering untill they find a country that accepts them or one that slaps some illegal immigrant law on them.

They may spend rest of thier lives with no home.

[prayzer]

But is it right to show people that killing is wrong by killing the killer?




"Killing the killer" is just punishment for breaking the law. The laws are there for a reason, and that reason is to keep life civilized between people of all different backgrounds, beliefs, and nationalities. All it shows is that the law is the law, and if you break it, you will be punished.

[rubah]

But is it right to show people that killing is wrong by killing the killer?


People who become murderers usually don't care whether it's wrong or not, so it takes a hefty punishment to try and deter them, and it still doesn't work all the time.