Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jelle]

Hrnnnoooo. There are crimes that occur by letting the state of things remain unchanged. Stuff related to criminal neglect particularly, if my memory's not failing me. Relatively rare stuff, but not unknown.

Mmmyyes. Neglect implies that without attention a situation deteriorates. Deterioration is a change of the state of things. The behavior of neglecting, of not taking action while the person has an obligation to, leads to the change of state.

[LordBucket]

social programs could be used as an alternative to the legal system to releave the suffering of both the criminal (by providing them with food) and the victims (starving people are much less likely to steal food when they are not starving). Given that a lot of crimes are commited by people of low socio-economic status, educational and traning programs could also be used (inside and outside the prison system) to give these people a better chance to provide for themselves.

I like the sentiment, but I'm not sure how realistic it is. According to a quick google check, Over 40% of recent college graduates are unemployed. These are people with degrees, presumably of sufficient socioeconomic background to have a good support structure, people of generally above-average intelligence and ambition...even so, it's difficult for a lot of them.

If even those people have such a difficult time, what kind of education/training do you think can realistically be given to people in the "dumb criminal, mugging people for money to buy food and booze" group to enable them to compete with those unemployed college graduates and, as you say, provide for themselves?

[alexandertnt]

The employment and training wouldnt just be limited to things like college degrees, but could also for other things, in particular traineeships.

I would imagine that any such system would have to remain flexable to economic conditions. If, for example, a country had a particular lack of cooks, you emphasise cooking courses. This is in contrast to the college system, which generally allows students to do whatever they want and then after college find out that their degree is actually worthless.

Its not perfect and its not guaranteed to work all the time, but I would think its better than letting prisoners rot in a prison cell.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Now what about instead of killing the man who steals food because he has no money to buy food, instead have him work for the government doing menial tasks such as road repair, government building maintenance, etc.

Also i believe that the government justice system should operate on a three warnings basis in which the order would be
1- Rehabilitation- try to help the criminal and give them what they need
2- Prevention- do something (like the drunk driver example) to keep the crime from happening
3- Retaliation- this is where you either kill the convict or remove a body part such as a theif's hands

Thanks for giving all your non-derailing opinions

[Tawa]

Not that I agree (I don't), but this guy I know thinks crime rates would drop severely if punishment for all crimes was execution.

Thoughts?

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Crime rates (I think) would drop but you would have a revolt on your hands

[10ebbor10]

Now what about instead of killing the man who steals food because he has no money to buy food, instead have him work for the government doing menial tasks such as road repair, government building maintenance, etc.

Welcome the to the US prison system. Anyway, what this results in is that the government/ private corporations now benefit from having people in prison. As such they're likely to invest less in rehabilitation/prevention efforts, and increase sentences for most crimes. I mean, why would you invest in social security systems to aid people, when you can just let them fall, and then cycle them into your money producing Prison-Industrial complex.

1- Rehabilitation- try to help the criminal and give them what they need
2- Prevention- do something (like the drunk driver example) to keep the crime from happening
3- Retaliation- this is where you either kill the convict or remove a body part such as a theif's hands

Uhm, this is kind-off a gross oversimplification. Rehabilitation isn't that simple, especially in the current economical situation, and certainly isn't feasible for all prisoners. After all, rehabilitation is quite expensive.

Not that I agree (I don't), but this guy I know thinks crime rates would drop severely if punishment for all crimes was execution.

Thoughts?

Draconian measures, I see. Aside from the fact that this will easily result in a totalitarian dictature (Disagreeing with the government is a crime), it can't help that much.

While some crimes, like Fraud, will probably disappear quite fast, common thievery and such will rapidly become more violent. After all, a starving person has no choice, and with the same sentence for small and heavy crimes, you're certainly going for the better rewarding ones, which tend to be more violent. So in the end, you'll have less crime, but murder rates and homicides will shoot through the roof.

[Frumple]

Not that I agree (I don't), but this guy I know thinks crime rates would drop severely if punishment for all crimes was execution.

Thoughts?

Heh. I remember a little story in a larger story I read, a while back. Went something like this:

There is a parable where I come from, about a minister who decided that since people fear death then if execution is made the punishment for lesser crimes then imagine the compliance against greater crimes! Unfortunately this then leads to the following situation. A platoon of troops has been delayed due to unforeseen circumstance and their captain asks his men 'What is the penalty for being late?' to which they all reply, 'Death'. He then asks 'And what is the penalty for rebellion?' to which they reply 'Death'. The captain then says, 'Gentlemen, we are late.'

My thoughts (beyond those on deterrence in general, which I voiced earlier in the thread)? You'd have less crime, but only because you would rapidly have no nation for crime to occur within.

[alexandertnt]

Not that I agree (I don't), but this guy I know thinks crime rates would drop severely if punishment for all crimes was execution.

Thoughts?

When someone steals from someone what is the problem? When someone stabs and kills someone what is the problem? The shopkeeper struggles to feed his/herself and their family. The grieving family members remember who their relative was and what they could have been. We want to do something about these problems, to prevent this sort of misery from taking place.

Now, lets start to kill and mutilate criminals for any crime. The shopkeeper struggles to feed the family because he has no hands (well, thats what you get for running a stop sign!). The grieving family members think back to how much different life would have been if their teenage son had just not tried that one ciggerate (it wasnt lung cancer, no, it was the legal system that did him in).

killing and mutilation are crimes for a reason, they cause this sort of misery and grief. All your really doing here is replacing misery with legally-justified misery, accomplishing effectively nothing at all.

[Tawa]

Interesting, what such a philosophy would cause.

I might want to mention this to him next time he brings it up.

[Grek]

"If an equal punishment be ordained for two crimes that injure society in different degrees, there is nothing to deter men from committing the greater as often as it is attended with greater advantage."
-On Crimes and Punishments, by Cesare Beccaria in 1764

[Knick]

Not that I agree (I don't), but this guy I know thinks crime rates would drop severely if punishment for all crimes was execution.

Thoughts?

Well, working under the assumption that the justice system is perfect it would certainly prevent recidivism.  Having watched my country's justice system growing up, I recall three major cases (the three "M"s-Milgaard, Morin, Marshall)--two would have been capital crimes, one not--that resulted in convictions of innocent people, and demonstrated exactly how wrong the system can be.

So--the whole eye-for-an-eye system, or capital punishment for more crimes, would likely result in killing or maiming innocents.  Of course, you could always fall back on the ol' "the innocent have nothing to fear" argument.  And if you don't wet yourself on being told that, you are either braver or more naive than I am!  Most cops I have met are decent and good, but I have also met cops who have their prejudices.

Does anyone know-preferably backed with proper statistics--whether murder rates are lower in states with Capital punishment than in those without?  My experience with criminals, such that it is, is that they tend not to be rocket scientists (um, except that NASA lady who was stalking that guy, but she's an outlier), are usually at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder, and usually do not think through their crimes.  There is very little cost/benefit analysis from the guy who flips out and burns down a house, or stabs a neighbour.

[10ebbor10]

Perhaps not neutral, but according to this murder rate is consistently higher in death penalty states.

[Zangi]

@Crimes of Passion, maybe if we removed the ability to love or make society much more accepting of 'sharing' their loved ones.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

When i said that the government should give them jobs i meant outside of a prison setting, in effect giving that person a job that would pay them money for their work so they could afford food and not steal. I was not meaning for it to sound like the government would house them and feed them while they did work.

sorry for the extremely over simplified 3 warning system that i stated earlier