What would be the best way to punish criminals?

[Aurielius]

@RZ1029

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.'

(Kill them all and let god sort out the innocent)

 

A little on the dark side even for me, the upside is that you would get a few truly guilty. I have to admit that you have a real 'Judge Roy Bean' approach to solving crime. I presume your post was tongue in cheek? If so, you have a truly dark sense of humor, if not..well prefer not to contemplate that.

[ginnyfizz]

Indeed, jim_uk, I totally agree with your point about if the penalty for offences short of murder is equal to that for murder, it encourages the rapist/robber to silence the evidence, ie the witness. On the principle of may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. That's what happened in days of the so called (and very aptly called) Bloody Code in 18th - early 19th Century England, where you could be hanged (short drop hanging too, very slow and nasty) for any number of offences including incredibly petty theft,coining, forgery, believe it or not - homosexuality, that's truly astonishing and iniquitous to think we could punish people for their orientation like that, as well as murder, highway robbery and treason. It is even alleged that in parts of England's Wild West, where the Assizes did not come round very often and the judges were only in town once in a blue moon, they would have the sentence first and the trial after.

 

As the judge will still exhort juries in the UK even today "Unless you are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty as charged, then you MUST find them Not Guilty."

 

A blanket "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.' could go either of two ways. Either juries would be reluctant to convict anyone of anything, or there would a lot of miscarriages of justice. And as jim_uk says, apologizing to a corpse just would not do, and nor would compensation.

 

Not that I have any problems with the "Three yards of cord and a sliding board" approach for clearly convicted murderers, a number of whom, in my country, are sustained by the taxpayer in rather cozy conditions when they really should have taken that short eight o'clock walk.

[Fatalmasterpiece]

Well my good sirs and madams....

 

I have a very simple solution for you. It involves a .45 bullet and the back of someone's head.

 

...

 

What do you do when it turns out the person you shot was innocent? it's not uncommon for innocent people to be jailed only to be released years later. Digging them up and saying sorry won't help them much. On the subject of rape, having the same punishment for that as murder is a very bad idea, why encourage a rapist to also murder his victim? after all there is no incentive to leave the only witness alive if the punishment is the same as killing them.

I agree about the first part; people can be reimbursed (not the word I'm looking for, but you get the point) if they were found innocent after all. However, if a guy is willing to go to such heights as rape (and considering the very heavy consequences associated with such a crime), he will very likely murder his victim just as readily no matter what the punishment was.

 

But you forget the other factors. Let's say someone is robbing a store at gun point. They don't want to kill anyone because that is a murder charge. If both crimes have the same punishment, why not just kill them? Hell, why not kill a bunch, you're marked for death anyways, kill em all now!

 

Fanatic punishment leads to fanatic crime.

[RZ1029]

@RZ1029

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.'

(Kill them all and let god sort out the innocent)

 

A little on the dark side even for me, the upside is that you would get a few truly guilty. I have to admit that you have a real 'Judge Roy Bean' approach to solving crime. I presume your post was tongue in cheek? If so, you have a truly dark sense of humor, if not..well prefer not to contemplate that.

It wasn't. I do, and you should.

 

As far as the innocent man, I can't deny that's a flaw in the system. That being said, I would hope that the way it is done in the US justice system 'innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' would be less flawed than it is, but we're human and imperfect.

 

EDIT: I think this may have been a thread killer.

Edited February 16, 2011 by RZ1029

[WizardOfAtlantis]

I've always thought the punishment should be a direct parallel to the crime. Murder for murderers, rape for rapists, maybe terrible work for thieves...sometimes it gets difficult.

 

It has to be done really well, though. Nothing short and simple. As a...how can I say...proponent of the idea that what happens in this life can mark you in the next, I personally think that whatever punishment that needs meeting out should make a mark, and a sufficient mark to last into the next life. Something to help the soon-to-be-deceased or not-so-soon-to-be remember just what it was that they blinkered up in this life so that they can get it right the next time...a lasting mark on their soul so that when they're busy tallying up the weight of their heart in that passage from One to the Next, they'll be reminded of what a foul being they were (I'm thinking murderer here as I write it as an example) and in the clearer light of the In-Between, they can maybe have a better chance of remembering and correcting the error of their ways.

 

On a more earthly note, in a capitalist society, using criminals as labor only increases the demand for criminals, which means more laws, worse prisons, less reform, etc.

[Aurielius]

@RZ1029

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.'

(Kill them all and let god sort out the innocent)

 

A little on the dark side even for me, the upside is that you would get a few truly guilty. I have to admit that you have a real 'Judge Roy Bean' approach to solving crime. I presume your post was tongue in cheek? If so, you have a truly dark sense of humor, if not..well prefer not to contemplate that.

It wasn't. I do, and you should.

 

As far as the innocent man, I can't deny that's a flaw in the system. That being said, I would hope that the way it is done in the US justice system 'innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' would be less flawed than it is, but we're human and imperfect.

 

EDIT: I think this may have been a thread killer.

 

I think Sir Thomas Moore was more eloquent than I on the subject, but I am in accord with him

 

 

William Roper "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"

Sir Thomas More: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"

William Roper: "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"

Sir Thomas More:" Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's"

~The Cromwell Papers

Edited February 16, 2011 by Aurielius

[brokenergy]

I heard that some people with minor offenses are forced to listen to Tom Jones and all the "oldie" artists. They said that they hated it so much that repeat offenses dropped.

[marharth]

Outlawry.

 

That's the way it worked at one point, and it's as good as it's gonna get. Here's how it works: each law has a penalty for breaking it; a fine (ridiculously high; Bill Gates would suffer), a jail sentence (and jails were very miserable), or a choice of both (I'm not certain on the punishments, but the point is that they were heavy). You would either accept the punishment, or refuse it. If you refused it, the judge would say "Alright, you choose not to obey the law, and therefore are exempt of its protection". His description is posted somewhere in the city, and now it's perfectly legal to: kill him, capture him as a slave, toss him in an arena and watch him fight to the death with a pack of lions for your own amusement, rape him, whatever. It's just, it's scary as hell, and it solves the tax problem.

 

@marharth

I can see why you would think of the "rehab society" idea, but there's one giant flaw: there's no reason to restrain yourself from breaking the law. Worst-case scenario, you have to spend years in some happy-land where they try to "make you better". Now, I could be wrong, but I don't think that's going to scare many people away from crime.

Well my society wouldn't be better then how you are now.

 

It would have a very strict rule system as well as prisoners having to work while staying there.

 

A system where crimes are not punished but the crimes are solved.

 

If you rob someone, then you should go through the rehab program and pay them back for example.

 

In the case of murder I do not believe in the death penalty. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

 

People certainly wouldn't want to go into the program and would much rather be living a normal life.

[Dicecaster]

Outlawry.

 

That's the way it worked at one point, and it's as good as it's gonna get. Here's how it works: each law has a penalty for breaking it; a fine (ridiculously high; Bill Gates would suffer), a jail sentence (and jails were very miserable), or a choice of both (I'm not certain on the punishments, but the point is that they were heavy). You would either accept the punishment, or refuse it. If you refused it, the judge would say "Alright, you choose not to obey the law, and therefore are exempt of its protection". His description is posted somewhere in the city, and now it's perfectly legal to: kill him, capture him as a slave, toss him in an arena and watch him fight to the death with a pack of lions for your own amusement, rape him, whatever. It's just, it's scary as hell, and it solves the tax problem.

 

@marharth

I can see why you would think of the "rehab society" idea, but there's one giant flaw: there's no reason to restrain yourself from breaking the law. Worst-case scenario, you have to spend years in some happy-land where they try to "make you better". Now, I could be wrong, but I don't think that's going to scare many people away from crime.

Well my society wouldn't be better then how you are now.

 

It would have a very strict rule system as well as prisoners having to work while staying there.

 

A system where crimes are not punished but the crimes are solved.

 

If you rob someone, then you should go through the rehab program and pay them back for example.

 

In the case of murder I do not believe in the death penalty. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

 

People certainly wouldn't want to go into the program and would much rather be living a normal life.

1. How would enforce that rule system? Sending him/her to another rehab society is repetitious, so you would have to use force one way or another.

2. On the third line, you speak as if punishing crimes and solving crimes are opposites. You would have to solve the crime before you punished them, otherwise you wouldn't know if it was just.

3. Yes, restitution is the best way to go about things. While outlawry does that to some degree, it's not effective for ensuring restitution all the time. There are ways around this, but it is an immediate flaw.

4. I never said death penalty. I said that if he/she doesn't pay the fine or do the time, he/she is exempt from the protection people have set in place for him/her. Furthermore, "an eye for an eye" is restitution.

5. Take a look at how effective our "harsh" punishments today are at deterring crime. If this is how well our current system does in that regard, do you think a rehab society would really do better?

6. Finally, if this program were government-run, it would be payed for with taxes, i.e. my money. If someone disagrees with such a system, they'll be forced to pay for it regardless.

[marharth]

Outlawry.

 

That's the way it worked at one point, and it's as good as it's gonna get. Here's how it works: each law has a penalty for breaking it; a fine (ridiculously high; Bill Gates would suffer), a jail sentence (and jails were very miserable), or a choice of both (I'm not certain on the punishments, but the point is that they were heavy). You would either accept the punishment, or refuse it. If you refused it, the judge would say "Alright, you choose not to obey the law, and therefore are exempt of its protection". His description is posted somewhere in the city, and now it's perfectly legal to: kill him, capture him as a slave, toss him in an arena and watch him fight to the death with a pack of lions for your own amusement, rape him, whatever. It's just, it's scary as hell, and it solves the tax problem.

 

@marharth

I can see why you would think of the "rehab society" idea, but there's one giant flaw: there's no reason to restrain yourself from breaking the law. Worst-case scenario, you have to spend years in some happy-land where they try to "make you better". Now, I could be wrong, but I don't think that's going to scare many people away from crime.

Well my society wouldn't be better then how you are now.

 

It would have a very strict rule system as well as prisoners having to work while staying there.

 

A system where crimes are not punished but the crimes are solved.

 

If you rob someone, then you should go through the rehab program and pay them back for example.

 

In the case of murder I do not believe in the death penalty. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

 

People certainly wouldn't want to go into the program and would much rather be living a normal life.

1. How would enforce that rule system? Sending him/her to another rehab society is repetitious, so you would have to use force one way or another.

 

Of course the person wouldn't be able to leave and would be locked in the area. Law enforcement would work the same.

 

2. On the third line, you speak as if punishing crimes and solving crimes are opposites. You would have to solve the crime before you punished them, otherwise you wouldn't know if it was just.

 

I didn't mean solving crimes as in finding out who did it. I meant solving crimes as in finding a solution to what happened other then locking someone away.

3. Yes, restitution is the best way to go about things. While outlawry does that to some degree, it's not effective for ensuring restitution all the time. There are ways around this, but it is an immediate flaw.

 

Why isn't it always effective?

 

4. I never said death penalty. I said that if he/she doesn't pay the fine or do the time, he/she is exempt from the protection people have set in place for him/her. Furthermore, "an eye for an eye" is restitution.

 

It would be impossible for them to not pay the fine or go through the program.

 

5. Take a look at how effective our "harsh" punishments today are at deterring crime. If this is how well our current system does in that regard, do you think a rehab society would really do better?

People seem to think that criminals always get caught. A large chunk of crimes are unsolved. Our system is not very effective really... It takes away rights from prisoners, and it makes them more of a criminal once they get out.

 

6. Finally, if this program were government-run, it would be payed for with taxes, i.e. my money. If someone disagrees with such a system, they'll be forced to pay for it regardless.

 

Read the topic below real quick, it has my entire system in it. I don't think you know what the entire system is I am proposing.

Mainly pages 6-10

 

It has my system on it there since I don't feel like re writing it :P

 

It would pay for itself.

Edited February 16, 2011 by marharth