Hitskin.com

Are prisons appropriate for non-violent offenders, or should they be given alternative punishments? In other words: if someone is a career con, a thief or a drug dealer, do you think they deserve to be locked up with murderers and sex offenders?

Yeah, but time should be limited to violent offenders. 300 years for armed robbery and 20 for first degree murder is ridiculous.

Yes, only violent ppl should be put in cages. The other non-violent who are not a threat to others should be given house arrest or some alternate to the very expensive prison.

With this tanking economy that may actually come to pass as governments are going bankrupt.

Nystyle709 wrote:: Yeah, but time should be limited to violent offenders. 300 years for armed robbery and 20 for first degree murder is ridiculous.

^This. Like I said, how do you get 300 years and nobody even died?

Chris wrote:: Are prisons appropriate for non-violent offenders, or should they be given alternative punishments? In other words: if someone is a career con, a thief or a drug dealer, do you think they deserve to be locked up with murderers and sex offenders?

Judges should be given some latitude when passing sentence but some non-violent offenders belong in ass-fuck prison right along with the rapists and murderers.

Perhaps not necessarily with violent crminals, but they still should be imprisoned. Drug dealers, thiefs, arsonists (where or not someone perished in a fire), are still dangerous to society.

» Where should sex offenders live after release from prison?
» Male sex offenders vs. Female sex offenders.
» 'L.A. sees parks as a weapon against sex offenders'
» Should sex offenders be allowed to decorate their house for Halloween?
» Should prison be abolished?

Hitskin.com

Should prison be limited to violent offenders only?