Are we causing most of our problems?

[Aurielius]

 

The problem with the Three Strikes idea is that it takes all kinds of crime the same way. Someone who commits shoplifting three times gets the same thing as someone who's just set a crate full of puppies on fire, throws his secretary down a flight of stairs, and then plays GTA in real life with his car.

You are overstating the inequity of Three Strikes Law, it requires three felonies of which ordinary shoplifting is not. The concept is to incarcerate career criminals with maximum sentences for the crime they have committed, not an altogether bad idea. Hyperbole though droll is hardly a good use of analogy.

[ub3rman123]

 

The problem with the Three Strikes idea is that it takes all kinds of crime the same way. Someone who commits shoplifting three times gets the same thing as someone who's just set a crate full of puppies on fire, throws his secretary down a flight of stairs, and then plays GTA in real life with his car.

You are overstating the inequity of Three Strikes Law, it requires three felonies of which ordinary shoplifting is not. The concept is to incarcerate career criminals with maximum sentences for the crime they have committed, not an altogether bad idea. Hyperbole though droll is hardly a good use of analogy.

 

Ah, felonies. My mistake there.

 

Keep it up, debater people who know what they're talking about!

[kvnchrist]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

 

 

The thing about that is that if a criminal isn't punished until the 3rd time that only gives them an unrealistic view of what punishment is. No matter how old you are, you know that if you do something wrong, You'' get in trouble. Look at a kid that has gotten into a cookie jar. Does that child not lie or try to get out of getting caught, because they are afraid of the penalties.

 

The main thing about 3 strikes is that these people will have nothing to loose, when confronted by life in jail. What's the difference between going to jail for life on a burglery rap or shooting it out with the police and killing four people in the process. Both crimes will get you life. People get desperate when they see no way out and may just up the ante to try to escape being captured

[HeyYou]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

 

The problem with the Three Strikes idea is that it takes all kinds of crime the same way. Someone who commits shoplifting three times gets the same thing as someone who's just set a crate full of puppies on fire, throws his secretary down a flight of stairs, and then plays GTA in real life with his car.

 

Only applies to felonies.

[grannywils]

I found the above two posts quite interesting and certainly not diametrically opposed to one another.

 

My answer to the somewhat oversimplified OP question would be, yes.

 

Nothing can exist in a vacuum. We create just about everything there is around us, including and most especially all the chaos. If we do not choose to relax and let others be themselves, we will constantly be in turmoil. Of course I am not speaking of allowing rapists to violate their victims, so please do not jump all over my case. We would have to go back a bit farther to determine why the rapist feels the need to exhibit this power, when he so obviously feels powerless. But that is a topic for another thread.

 

The OP makes a good point about the repression that exists in our society. Perhaps if we were able to be more open about our feelings and could express ourselves without the attendent "shame", we would be less likely to express it through either violence or the excoriation of our fellow man for his expressions. We are, in fact allowed to be different. And wouldn't it be a dreary world if we were not.

Just curious but why do Liberals think that it always a matter of understanding the malefactor and that if we just search hard enough there might be some remediation in behavior? There are such things as evil people and there are two solutions for these types, prison or death, depending in the severity of the criminal act. Shame at least is a moral response to unacceptable societal behavior, a little more shame in todays society might not go amiss.

 

Sorry, Aurielius if you misinterpreted my mention of the rapists' feeling of powerlessness as a matter of needing to understand the malefactor. That was not my point at all. I was not suggesting remediation either. I agree entirely with you regarding evil. In fact you and I have discussed this in the past. Regarding the solutions, that was not the subject of this post. I was simply trying to respond to whether or not I believed that we were causing most of our own problems. The rape scenario was brought up by an earlier poster, and I just responded to it.

[marharth]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

What is the logic in punishment?

 

Is there any real point in punishing criminals?

[Sepherose]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

What is the logic in punishment?

 

Is there any real point in punishing criminals?

 

Yes, yes there is. But the sad truth of it, without a shock, many won't learn the lesson. As an example, is someone has committed rape, I see one potential punishment that would most definitely teach a lesson to those that have considered it. And yes, I am prepared to take flak for this as "barbaric", but I don't see a problem with treating a monster in a monstrous way. In short, remove their unmentionables in a public forum. The shock through society will spread at the brutality of the act, and individuals that might have considered such an act will think twice. This is simply a thought, and yes, as stated, I understand there are those out there that will very much disagree with me.

[marharth]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

What is the logic in punishment?

 

Is there any real point in punishing criminals?

 

Yes, yes there is. But the sad truth of it, without a shock, many won't learn the lesson. As an example, is someone has committed rape, I see one potential punishment that would most definitely teach a lesson to those that have considered it. And yes, I am prepared to take flak for this as "barbaric", but I don't see a problem with treating a monster in a monstrous way. In short, remove their unmentionables in a public forum. The shock through society will spread at the brutality of the act, and individuals that might have considered such an act will think twice. This is simply a thought, and yes, as stated, I understand there are those out there that will very much disagree with me.

Punishment won't make criminals better, punishment will make criminals want to harm people more.

 

Shock won't stop people from committing crimes. Your punishment system could be death for even petty theft, people will still do crimes.

[Sepherose]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

What is the logic in punishment?

 

Is there any real point in punishing criminals?

 

Yes, yes there is. But the sad truth of it, without a shock, many won't learn the lesson. As an example, is someone has committed rape, I see one potential punishment that would most definitely teach a lesson to those that have considered it. And yes, I am prepared to take flak for this as "barbaric", but I don't see a problem with treating a monster in a monstrous way. In short, remove their unmentionables in a public forum. The shock through society will spread at the brutality of the act, and individuals that might have considered such an act will think twice. This is simply a thought, and yes, as stated, I understand there are those out there that will very much disagree with me.

Punishment won't make criminals better, punishment will make criminals want to harm people more.

 

Shock won't stop people from committing crimes. Your punishment system could be death for even petty theft, people will still do crimes.

 

I'm not saying crime will stop altogether, that is utopian and naive. Also, I wouldn't want death for petty theft, or anything of that caliber, but I do believe that harsh examples will curb crime, leaving the true criminals more obvious, as they would be more likely to be the ones doing the crime rather than those that are simply curious. I'm am not so simple minded as to think all criminals are evil or bad either, there are genuine cases where someone commits a crime out of necessity rather than simple curiosity. An example would be someone that had a life and a job, but due to circumstances out of there control, suddenly find their life pinwheeling and end up on the streets. That does happen, as I am sure you know, and with today's economy, it would be difficult, and near impossible in some places, to get back on their feet, so to survive they end up stealing a loaf of bread or something similar. And before someone attempts to say it, I am aware that there are programs in place to help those on the streets, but those programs are horribly underfunded, and are being cut in many places, also, that's a debate for a different thread I would think :P

 

Edit: Also, what would you suggest in place of punishment? Rehabilitation tend to have the same problem, if not more of them. And without punishment for criminals, well, that is practically anarchy. Criminals would not be concerned with restraint, and society would become stupidly unbalanced.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Sepherose

[LadyMilla]

Why should my taxes pay for three shots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

 

You are not only paying for a cot for some killer. Your tax also pays for the life insurance of those who are getting sentenced innocently or without due process in an imperfect legal/judicial system. If you have doubts, look up the statistics about people sentenced to death/long prison terms and released subsequently because investigation revealed a case of wrongful conviction (sometimes wrongful to the extent that it can be labelled as a travesty of justice). Fabricated evidence, biased or corrupt judges/jurors, negligence, being framed successfully for a crime one did not commit... all these factors can and do ruin lives. If you feel uncomfortable spending money on prisons and prisoners convicted for violent crimes (rape, murder, etc.), try to think about it in a different way: you probably have some sort of insurance against theft, damages to your property, medical insurance and so on. You are willing to pay to guard yourself against events that are not very likely to happen so you might as well think about the portion of your tax payment spent on prisons and inmates as your own life insurance against a possible miscarriage of justice. (Yes, I know, people usually delude themselves that the chances are so negligible it won't happen to them - then, when it does happen, they cry out "Oh, God, why me?").

 

Also, as other people have already stated, the severity of punishments is not correlated to crime rates. If it were, murder would be non existent in countries where death penalty still exists, and would be rampant elsewhere. This is not the case. Demanding severe punishments is usually a handy tool for politicians to whip up support for their goals (getting elected/re-elected, etc.). Unfortunately, increasing the severity of punishment is an easy answer that appeals to the voters' demand for justice because the real answer (strains caused by competitive existence, perceived inability to live up to the accepted standards of the society, feeling of entitlement or the 'I can get away with it' syndrome, skewed perception of the other sex caused by bad upbringing (or the lack of upbringing), etc.), or rather the answer that is closer to reality, could be seen as waffling or indecisiveness/leniency towards criminals.