I have thought of a new system to lower the murder rate on earth. This new Law is enforced and authorized for every human who is 25 years age that has been found guilty by trial for the murder or attempted murder of a human or murder by abortion or the attempted abortion of human.

The sentence would be immediate abandonment to "Abolesecere" the square structure of 33,000 acres anchored loosely afloat, constructed to never be at ease but in a sinking cycle with a area flooded slightly underwater 25 percent of the time just to rise and sink the next corner every hour so a settlement for permanent housing is never possible.

The surface area is completely flat and of steel. Every acre has 22 Grave stones of iron for shade with the words "Unity" imprinted in bold.

Each abolisher is issued a white T-shirt and white pair of pants made of wool. The abolished have to drink and eat of the ocean. A debris filter will stop any type of depater of a large scale and boats are restricted within a 100 square miles of Abolesecre. By the age of 25 a human will have viewed Documented Footage or have herd terrible stories of how murders felt the pain and agony with fear on there face before being murdered or how the structure gives no mercy by giving a constant environment of obscurity and unrest most will die of unrest,starvation or dehydration.

The only way of living again on land if a abolished survives a miracle voyage of ocean he will be pardoned and given a second chance of life in the nation he or she resided from.

Question are my rules fair yet the conditions are extreme enough that a drastic drop in murder will undergo and a humanity will be a step closer to Unity?


closed as primarily opinion-based by Aify, Hohmannfan, o.m., James, bilbo_pingouin May 19 '16 at 21:45

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 9
    $\begingroup$ "Are my rules fair" <- on what scale? They sound psychotic to me, but in your society they probably make perfect sense. "extreme enough that a drastic drop in murder will" occur <- depends on your motivations, doesn't it? Also, classifying abortion as murder is a pretty touchy subject, friend. Last but not least, what the heck is "Unity"? Could you tell us a little more about your world? $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM May 19 '16 at 16:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd also like to point out that being constantly wet/somewhat submerged in water will cause various health issues for people. $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM May 19 '16 at 16:44
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ It's not clear that any punishment, no matter how horrible, actually prevents murders. Otherwise you would think the death penalty would drastically lower murder rates, which seems not to be the case. $\endgroup$ – Torisuda May 19 '16 at 17:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Side note...there is no fresh water in the ocean, everyone would die within a few days of being put on your raft/jail. $\endgroup$ – James May 19 '16 at 18:25
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The main problem is most people who commit capital crimes either are acting rashly and aren't thinking about the consequences, or think that the chance they will be caught and convicted is small. You would find it more effective to increase the probably of a criminal being caught than to increase the severity of the punishment. $\endgroup$ – sdrawkcabdear May 19 '16 at 20:08

With the details stripped away, the basic question is "does capital punishment reduce the murder rate"? In particular high profile capital punishment. Yes, technically you're not killing people, you're "just" torturing them. It's all capital punishment.

Humanity has tried this over and over and over and over and over and over... hasn't worked. Public hangings, the stocks, the guillotine, the electric chair, life imprisonment, solitary confinement, torture, beheadings...

"But wait", you say, "my torture device is more elaborate and gruesome than anyone's ever before! Surely it will scare people straight!" This comes from a false assumption that committing murder is a logical choice. That the potential criminal will think, "hmm... I could break into this house, steal their VCR to feed my family because I've been out of work, and in the process shoot the home owner... but then I might wind up on that weird torture jail they show on TV. Nahh... I'll just wallow in poverty instead."

Capital crime is not a logical decision. If you want to reduce homicides, remove the circumstances that drive people to that, and give people somewhere to go when they're up against a wall. Crime comes from poverty, mental illness, and bad circumstances all mixed together. If you want to reach "Unity", give your people better lives.

If capital punishment was a deterrent, then this map would show a clear correlation between countries with the death penalty and countries without.

enter image description here

Homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012. Lighter is fewer. Source

It doesn't. What there might be is an inverse correlation between economic standing and political freedom and homicide. The better off your people are, the less homicides you will have.

Within the United States, there's also no correlation between states with capital punishment vs states without, their rates are all over the place. What does correlate is income and homicide rate. There's also a very clear downward trend for all US crime in the last 20 years including homicides.

enter image description here

Source US Bureau of Justice Statistics

Punishment is a deterrent to crime... to a point. After that, you're just fetishizing punishment. That leads to weird distortions of the justice system.

And I don't know how publicly torturing your citizens will lead to anything called "Unity".

  • Most murderers believe that they will not be caught, or they don't think about the risk at all while they murder people. Punishments won't deter them. Schwern explained that in great detail in his answer.
  • You won't get a worldwide agreement on what constitutes a fair trial, even among western democratic nations.
  • There is no worldwide agreement on the definition of murder or attempted murder, either. Must legislation includes some sort of manslaughter or negligent homicide with a lesser punishment, but the exact dividing lines differ widely. I note that you included abortion and attempted abortion, which is highly controversial.
  • $\begingroup$ How about western prisons are not feared or explained to our children in school at all, not one lecture. So kids just got to learn when they do a crime because they do not have any fear of prison,how long would a document be of how a inmate describes how boring it is to sit in a room for 25 years. $\endgroup$ – user5434678 May 19 '16 at 18:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @user5434678, you cannot possibly generalize about "our children in school." We watched a civil trial and got a guided tour of the criminal court, including the attached jail cells. $\endgroup$ – o.m. May 19 '16 at 18:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user5434678 First you make the broad generalization without backup that school kids don't fear western prisons and aren't shown them. Then you say when those same kids are shown a "watered down" view of prison they're terrified. If they're already afraid of the "watered down" prison, why do we need an even more fearsome prison? $\endgroup$ – Schwern May 19 '16 at 20:45

"Fair" really depends on your citizens and your world as a whole. If this occurred in today's world, there would be a drastic increase of murders...of your government officials. The whole idea seems needlessly elaborate and ethically flawed (though this may be your intent).

Incarceration is expensive. People already complain about having to pay for prisons in today's world. The cost of building and maintaining your half flooded artificial steel island would be immense. Depending how (if?) you're enforcing order on the island, you may also need air patrols. All of these items and more raise the question: does the public really think this is worth it? Which brings us to...

There are several alternatives here. The first is that your people are so zealously opposed to murder that they are willing to exile their own countrymen to an unknown fate. Such things are not unknown in history, penal colonies come to mind. However in most cases they are performing some useful task for their country. In your story, those exiles are literally walking around a dystopian structure struggling for existence. I would imagine there would be those in your nation that would be opposed to this treatment. After all, isn't this a sort of murder in itself? If people are zealous enough to build this structure in the first place, surely there are those who think all violence is abhorrible.

On the other side of the spectrum is a society where people just don't care what happens to these people.The more zealous government managed to ram through this project but the people in general are ambivalent. Some might even prefer a strict and immediate death penalty. At some point this is going to become a point of contention ("My tax dollars are paying for what?!?"), and those in favor of the island will be removed from power.

Another aspect of ethics that confused me here is your citizens view of if these people can be saved. On one hand you're perfectly fine with letting them die to "unrest, starvation or dehydration". But yet, you think they can be redeemed, and are willing to pardon them after an unspecified amount of time. Are there any requirements to getting pardoned or do you just have to stay alive for a certain time period? How is this reforming citizens? You might want to think this one out.

Suppose for a moment that the above issues do not exist. The people are all in favor of the island, and the government has plenty of money and resources to build it. There's still the problem of political corruption. When does this punishment become the norm for other crimes? What's to say the government can't pick out anyone who speaks them and exile that individual to obscurity and starvation?

A last point is military security. The first thing a foreign power is going to do in a land war against this nation is to free this island. Then they arm the prisoners and send them against their country. What better shock soldiers than murderers itching to get back at the nation that ruined their life.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.