| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2008 07:10:39 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Unfortunately, discretionary sentencing give rise to unequal sanctions. If crimes are identical, then so should be punishment being meted out. |
Given that no crime is ever identical, shouldn't judges who hear all the evidence in relation to a crime be the ones to decide what is appropriate? Equivalence of approach can be dealt with more than adequately through guidelines.
Originally posted by Ray:
It must also be borne in mind that in some countries, that once appointed, judges have to answer to no one and that in itself is an issue worthy of discussion. |
But the huge risk with making a judge accountable is that you politicise his judgments. A judge who is answerable to someone (other than a higher court) must pander to the opinions of his accounter. e.g. elected judges must hand down popular judgments in order to be re-elected even if the popular judgment is unjust.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:11:09 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by egamble:
You are just completely whacked. I am sure Obama enjoys your monthly donations. |
Interesting take. Unfortunately, I'm not even allowed to donate to any campaigns in the US (which makes sense).
Originally posted by egamble:
How can you compare a person who kills for pleasure to a person who might kill if their wife or children is hurt?
You LOVE to compare apples to oranges and act like they are the same. THEY AREN'T!
A crime of passion is completely different than a crime that happens because of malice or some biological imbalance that cannot be remedied. |
Exactly. This is what I tried to show.  SDW argued that a person who once committed a crime will do so again. I don't think so, it depends on what caused them to commit the crime. I tried to illustrate this with an example we have discussed before. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:17:21 PM · #128 |
I spent hours looking for a report I once saw about a prison somewhere in Scandinavia. I didn't find the video I was looking for, but something similar:
//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5105207813905488668
Let's assume transferring inmates to such a prison for the last months of their sentence reduces the likelihood that they will ever commit a crime again (just for the sake of the argument. I think this is true, but it would have to be studied in detail.). Wouldn't you support such an approach? It would reduce the punishment for the criminals because that special prison is a more pleasant place to be, but it would also reduce crime rates and thereby protect the population.
EDIT: Here's more: //www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/26/crime.penal
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 19:20:22. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:24:13 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by egamble:
You are just completely whacked. I am sure Obama enjoys your monthly donations. |
Interesting take. Unfortunately, I'm not even allowed to donate to any campaigns in the US (which makes sense).
Originally posted by egamble:
How can you compare a person who kills for pleasure to a person who might kill if their wife or children is hurt?
You LOVE to compare apples to oranges and act like they are the same. THEY AREN'T!
A crime of passion is completely different than a crime that happens because of malice or some biological imbalance that cannot be remedied. |
Exactly. This is what I tried to show. SDW argued that a person who once committed a crime will do so again. I don't think so, it depends on what caused them to commit the crime. I tried to illustrate this with an example we have discussed before. |
Yeah. But you need to compare two criminals who committed the original crime...THE FIRST TIME..for the same reasons....to prove your point. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:25:56 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
The problem is that once someone sits in prison, the punishment has already failed as a deterrent. So the only purpose it can have is to keep them from doing further crime. |
Having someone locked up certainly does prevent them from committing more crimes. In most western countries, this is the principle aim of the justice system.
You are asking whether the punishment should be more severe in order to satisfy feelings of revenge. For most politicians in most countries there is a need to demonstrate that justice is being done. There is a punitive element in sentencing that reflects society's expectations. However, there is not usually any element of personal revenge for the victim.
The US is an oddity. Its readiness to prosecute and its penalties are among the most severe in the world (with little apparent impact on crime rates). The US has a love affair with incarceration that will be hard for any politician to break, no matter how ineffective, expensive and backwards a policy it may be for a large proportion of offenders.
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 19:27:20.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:46:09 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The US is an oddity. Its readiness to prosecute and its penalties are among the most severe in the world (with little apparent impact on crime rates). The US has a love affair with incarceration that will be hard for any politician to break, no matter how ineffective, expensive and backwards a policy it may be for a large proportion of offenders. |
I think it is more a love affair with being "Hard on Crime" not to mention that we have private prisons and they are considered a major growth industry. That is one of the bigger problems in my opinion. Money and greed on the side of free enterprise. We need more people to lockup to justify that new prison run by Prisons-R-Us. That part is frustrating and sad. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:54:08 PM · #132 |
| "War On Drugs" = "Big Business" |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:56:04 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I think it is more a love affair with being "Hard on Crime" |
Agreed. The best way of demonstrating the effectiveness of so-called "softer" approaches is through reducing crime rates. However, that is a long-term policy in a world of increasingly short-termist politics.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 08:04:42 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by SDW:
If they committed it once I have enough reason to believe they will commit again. Would you agree? |
Young people do stupid things, and they tend to grow older and wiser. Wouldn't you agree? |
We were referring to hard crime like murder, rape, etc. on this subject. Not petty theft.
Originally posted by SDW:
Are you saying criminals should not be punished? |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I don't think that Sam was saying this. However, are you saying that the law should be based on vengeance, rather than protection and restitution? |
Even though vengeance is a word that can be substituted for punishment; vengeance is by definition to an extreme degree. If a person murders another the justice system should punish and not have an vendetta. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 08:25:26 PM · #135 |
| I keep hearing the term "reduce the punishment of the criminal"! I don't get the logic here. Are you really wanting to stop crime or reduce the punishment handed down to convicted criminals? |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 08:29:33 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Young people do stupid things, and they tend to grow older and wiser. Wouldn't you agree? |
We were referring to hard crime like murder, rape, etc. on this subject. Not petty theft. |
So you are commenting only on extreme crimes, not the vast majority of instances? You would have one principle for hard crime and one for crimes of a petty nature?
Originally posted by SDW:
Even though vengeance is a word that can be substituted for punishment; vengeance is by definition to an extreme degree. If a person murders another the justice system should punish and not have an vendetta. |
But your view is that a person should be punished to a greater degree or for longer than is required for society's protection in order to satisfy a general desire on the part of the public to see law-breakers punished?
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 08:30:04 PM · #137 |
My original post was very theoretical in nature and I understand that some people consider this unrealistic.
Some have suggested that I want us to pamper criminals or not hold them responsible at all. This is not the case.
However, I think we should focus on reducing crime rates and on making our society as a whole safer and more peaceful. The video and article I posted above provide a practical example of how part of the punishment could be replaced by something else in order to improve prisoners' chances to lead a commendable life afterwards. What do you think of this approach?
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 20:31:48. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 09:11:29 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Not per capita. The US is rated 8th and your country is not far behind at 14th. Link |
Old statistics, 1998 to 2000. Consider the commentary on that very page:
"Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a "crime". Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime. " |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 09:58:13 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Which scenario would you prefer? A* or B*?
What this boils down to is: What is more important to you, a safe society or punishment of criminals? |
why do we need to have "Hell" and "Heaven" in most religions?
religion is concrete proof that reward and punishment works (theoretically, as you like to put it) |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 10:11:57 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by crayon:
why do we need to have "Hell" and "Heaven" in most religions?
religion is concrete proof that reward and punishment works (theoretically, as you like to put it) |
Yes, concepts like heaven and hell are also some kind of deterrent. However, they don't seem to work that well. The US is a very religious country, but crime rates are high (and statistics even show that crime is higher in more religious areas. Yes it's a correlation and not causation, I know. Maybe more crime leads to more people being religious. However, it puts into question the theory that more religiosity leads to less crime.).
I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion. I would rather like to come back to the practical example I mentioned. What do you think of the Norwegian prison where criminals are sent at the end of their term? Watch the short video and read the article below if you haven't studied them yet.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I spent hours looking for a report I once saw about a prison somewhere in Scandinavia. I didn't find the video I was looking for, but something similar:
//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5105207813905488668
Let's assume transferring inmates to such a prison for the last months of their sentence reduces the likelihood that they will ever commit a crime again (just for the sake of the argument. I think this is true, but it would have to be studied in detail.). Wouldn't you support such an approach? It would reduce the punishment for the criminals because that special prison is a more pleasant place to be, but it would also reduce crime rates and thereby protect the population.
EDIT: Here's more: //www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/26/crime.penal |
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 10:23:24 PM · #141 |
IMO, punishment works, and it works well.
seriously, if i know that i'm allowed to steal ONCE in my life WITHOUT punishment, on the rule that i will never steal again in my entire life - i'd go ahead and do it. i'd walk into a bank and steal enough money to life me 10 lifetimes, but i promise i'd never ever steal again (which i'd adhere to, since i dont need to steal anymore anyway)
so i repeat, punishment works.
edit to add: if there is no punishment, it will be a ENCOURAGEMENT for bad people to do bad things, eventhough they will never repeat it, it is still as bad. imagine if each person in the population does ONE bad thing, depending on the severity, it's enough to have a huge impact.
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 22:25:05. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 10:23:46 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I spent hours looking for a report I once saw about a prison somewhere in Scandinavia. I didn't find the video I was looking for, but something similar:
//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5105207813905488668
Let's assume transferring inmates to such a prison for the last months of their sentence reduces the likelihood that they will ever commit a crime again (just for the sake of the argument. I think this is true, but it would have to be studied in detail.). Wouldn't you support such an approach? It would reduce the punishment for the criminals because that special prison is a more pleasant place to be, but it would also reduce crime rates and thereby protect the population.
EDIT: Here's more: //www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/26/crime.penal |
Interesting idea, I can see the merit. I struggle with the types of inmates they let into the program and I am not sure the US is built for that type of camp. I know the Federal Prison system in the US has different levels of detention including no wall camp like settings. I am pretty sure that they don't give the inmates up to 30 days for a holiday away.
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 22:30:04. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 10:42:49 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by crayon:
IMO, punishment works, and it works well. |
Unfortunately, this is not a question of personal opinion...
Originally posted by crayon:
seriously, if i know that i'm allowed to steal ONCE in my life WITHOUT punishment, on the rule that i will never steal again in my entire life - i'd go ahead and do it. |
Nobody here advocates a policy to let everyone get away the first time. And are you saying that the only thing keeping you from stealing is the prospect of punishment?
What do you think of the Norwegian prison? |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 02:46:50 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I spent hours looking for a report I once saw about a prison somewhere in Scandinavia. I didn't find the video I was looking for, but something similar:
//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5105207813905488668
Let's assume transferring inmates to such a prison for the last months of their sentence reduces the likelihood that they will ever commit a crime again (just for the sake of the argument. I think this is true, but it would have to be studied in detail.). Wouldn't you support such an approach? It would reduce the punishment for the criminals because that special prison is a more pleasant place to be, but it would also reduce crime rates and thereby protect the population.
EDIT: Here's more: //www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/26/crime.penal |
Interesting idea, I can see the merit. I struggle with the types of inmates they let into the program and I am not sure the US is built for that type of camp. I know the Federal Prison system in the US has different levels of detention including no wall camp like settings. I am pretty sure that they don't give the inmates up to 30 days for a holiday away. |
Are you concerned about the fact that they accept rapists and murderers into the program? Don't you think that for them the experience is even more valuable and can have a greater impact than for other criminals? |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 03:18:14 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by crayon:
IMO, punishment works, and it works well. |
Unfortunately, this is not a question of personal opinion... |
what i think, is my opinion, and i thought that's what you specifically asked for, lol sorry my bad.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by crayon:
seriously, if i know that i'm allowed to steal ONCE in my life WITHOUT punishment, on the rule that i will never steal again in my entire life - i'd go ahead and do it. |
Nobody here advocates a policy to let everyone get away the first time. And are you saying that the only thing keeping you from stealing is the prospect of punishment? |
YES, spot on. i'd rob a bank (because i'm tired of being poor) if there is no punishment.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
What do you think of the Norwegian prison? |
i think it is a good compromise if i'm allowed to rob a bank, or kill someone i really hated.
looks comfortable, and everything is paid for, sweet :D
p/s: to the feds reading this, NO, i'm not going to rob a bank or kill anyone because i'm afraid of being punished by law.
Message edited by author 2008-08-13 03:19:12. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 08:48:46 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by crayon:
seriously, if i know that i'm allowed to steal ONCE in my life WITHOUT punishment, on the rule that i will never steal again in my entire life - i'd go ahead and do it. |
Then, sadly, you are innately a very immoral person. I'm rather surprised that you would admit to having no moral problem with taking something significant that doesn't belong to you simply because it would make your life a little easier, irrespective of the consequences to everyone around you. That's the definition of moral bankruptcy, and if it weren't for the fact that this is a public forum where anyone can say any flip thing that comes into their head, I'd be pretty depressed right now. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 08:57:13 AM · #147 |
I don't feel like there should be any freebie in crime. Most, not all, but most people caught in a criminal act is not caught the first time. With that as a known fact do you really think their word would keep them from doing it again?
ETA: Yes I agree the system need improvement but the question is how. I glad this thread has been mostly civil, it shows we all can have a good debate. But lets quit going in circles here. I would like to challenge everyone (including myself) that has been active in this thread to post an example of how they feel crime could be reduced without degrading for victim(s) along with fair repercussions toward the criminal for the act he/she committed. Lets try to include at least 5 points to support your theory. I will think about my proposal and post later.
Message edited by author 2008-08-13 09:05:23. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 11:27:45 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Are you concerned about the fact that they accept rapists and murderers into the program? Don't you think that for them the experience is even more valuable and can have a greater impact than for other criminals? |
Yes I am. I do think that there are inmates that are capable of reform and that the circumstances of their crime may dictate a "more understanding" sentence but I fear recidivism. The real world is very different from the camp like setting and when they get out and can't find a job or experience discrimination because of their crimes will they revert to their old ways.
I think the camp setting would be good for non-violent offenders.
I do think the experience may be more beneficial for the violent inmate but not for society. I think at that point it becomes about the greater good.
Message edited by author 2008-08-13 11:32:39. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 11:42:54 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by SDW:
I don't feel like there should be any freebie in crime. Most, not all, but most people caught in a criminal act is not caught the first time. With that as a known fact do you really think their word would keep them from doing it again? |
You all keep arguing against a "one freebie" crime policy. However, nobody ever suggested such a policy.
We all know that the prototype scenarios I outlined in my original post are unrealistic. However, I think our current system is closer to B*) than to A*) and I think it would be better to move in the direction of A*). I wrote about one initiative that has actually been implemented successfully, the prison in Norway. What do you all think about it? SDW?  Judi?  kenskid? dacrazyrn?  LoudDog? gwe21? Patrick_R? egamble? overclover? MAK? SteveJ? RayEthier?
Originally posted by crayon:
i think it is a good compromise if i'm allowed to rob a bank, or kill someone i really hated.
looks comfortable, and everything is paid for, sweet :D |
Are you saying that if prisons were more comfortable you'd go around robbing and killing? Well, if you assume everyone else to think like you, then I can understand your demand for tougher sentences.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I do think that there are inmates that are capable of reform and that the circumstances of their crime may dictate a "more understanding" sentence but I fear recidivism. The real world is very different form the camp like setting and when they get out and can't find a job or experience discrimination because of their crimes will they revert to their old ways. |
If someone is not locked up forever, they will leave prison one day. I think they are less likely to revert to their old ways if they spent the last months of their sentence at the camp instead of a regular prison. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 12:01:58 PM · #150 |
I remember in the mid 1970's may have been early 80's here in Louisiana....
A young boy about 12 years old was kidnapped by his Karate instructor. He was taken to California. He was molested and if I remember correctly he was raped by the man.
They caught the man in California...freed the child. The child was taken back to Louisiana to his father. The child's hair was dyed jet black for disguise.
A few days later the kidnapper was flown back to Baton Rough. As the COCKY instructor was being led in handcuffs (on TV) through the airport a man (the father) turned out from a phone booth with a pistol. He shot the kidnapper in the head.
The father was arrested but didn't serve any time !
We may drink RC Cola and eat Moon Pies here in Louisiana but we know how to dish out the justice !
Oh...here's a link to the "crime".
Originally posted by egamble:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
=
According to this logic every criminal should be locked away forever. The thinking is based on the assumption that there are good people and evil people and that both will stay the way they are forever. Some people here have suggested they would kill someone who brought harm to their family. If they do it, they will end up in prison themselves. Do you think they would kill again afterwards? Probably not. Are they evil people?
= |
Scratch what I said about being logical.
You are just completely whacked. I am sure Obama enjoys your monthly donations.
How can you compare a person who kills for pleasure to a person who might kill if their wife or children is hurt?
You LOVE to compare apples to oranges and act like they are the same. THEY AREN'T!
A crime of passion is completely different than a crime that happens because of malice or some biological imbalance that cannot be remedied. |
Message edited by author 2008-08-13 12:09:52. |
|
