Are we causing most of our problems?

[Sepherose]

Now correct me if I am wrong here, but I do believe this states that a severe punishment, if widely known about as being used in the event of certain crimes, does in fact increase deterrence to the criminal act. Now if you would argue that word of mouth through the criminal community would in fact spread the knowledge, this is not absolutely the case.

 

Not entirely true. The rate of crimes occurring is more likely to decrease if there is a corresponding increase in the chances of being caught.

 

If there's little-to-no chance of being caught the criminal will do the crime anyway, regardless of the severity of punishment - simply because you have to catch him before you can punish him. The general apathy of the human race helps the criminal in this case: "No, officer, I was there but I didnt see anything (*...because I don't want to get involved...*)..."

 

On the other hand, if there's a very large chance of being caught the criminal will likely pause simply to avoid being caught, even if the punishment isn't as severe...and thus the crime rate drops.

 

You are right, most certainly, I probably should have clarified a bit better what I meant, and honestly I completely forgot one part of what I was going to type. Essentially, if the likelihood is high, but the punishment is extremely weak, it will have little to no deterrent effect, whereas if the likelihood of getting caught is high, and the punishment severe as well as the punishment being well known about, that would most definitely increase deterrence. So severity does in fact have a direct relation to deterrence.

[Sync182]

Now correct me if I am wrong here, but I do believe this states that a severe punishment, if widely known about as being used in the event of certain crimes, does in fact increase deterrence to the criminal act. Now if you would argue that word of mouth through the criminal community would in fact spread the knowledge, this is not absolutely the case.

 

Not entirely true. The rate of crimes occurring is more likely to decrease if there is a corresponding increase in the chances of being caught.

 

If there's little-to-no chance of being caught the criminal will do the crime anyway, regardless of the severity of punishment - simply because you have to catch him before you can punish him. The general apathy of the human race helps the criminal in this case: "No, officer, I was there but I didnt see anything (*...because I don't want to get involved...*)..."

 

On the other hand, if there's a very large chance of being caught the criminal will likely pause simply to avoid being caught, even if the punishment isn't as severe...and thus the crime rate drops.

 

You are right, most certainly, I probably should have clarified a bit better what I meant, and honestly I completely forgot one part of what I was going to type. Essentially, if the likelihood is high, but the punishment is extremely weak, it will have little to no deterrent effect, whereas if the likelihood of getting caught is high, and the punishment severe as well as the punishment being well known about, that would most definitely increase deterrence. So severity does in fact have a direct relation to deterrence.

 

Compare two scenarios:

a) 10% chance of getting 30 years in prison

b) 90% chance of getting 15 years in prison

 

I submit that the majority of criminals will take the risk in situation (a), but will not in situation (b) - simply because the likelihood of losing 15 years of their own freedoms is so much higher than the likelihood of losing 30 years.

 

You could impose the death penalty on every crime in existence, but if the chance of being caught is near-zero then criminals will more-than-likely keep going about their daily activities. On the other hand, if there is a 99% certainty of being stung for $10,000 each time you break the law, then crime rates will fall pretty sharply.

[Sepherose]

Now correct me if I am wrong here, but I do believe this states that a severe punishment, if widely known about as being used in the event of certain crimes, does in fact increase deterrence to the criminal act. Now if you would argue that word of mouth through the criminal community would in fact spread the knowledge, this is not absolutely the case.

 

Not entirely true. The rate of crimes occurring is more likely to decrease if there is a corresponding increase in the chances of being caught.

 

If there's little-to-no chance of being caught the criminal will do the crime anyway, regardless of the severity of punishment - simply because you have to catch him before you can punish him. The general apathy of the human race helps the criminal in this case: "No, officer, I was there but I didnt see anything (*...because I don't want to get involved...*)..."

 

On the other hand, if there's a very large chance of being caught the criminal will likely pause simply to avoid being caught, even if the punishment isn't as severe...and thus the crime rate drops.

 

You are right, most certainly, I probably should have clarified a bit better what I meant, and honestly I completely forgot one part of what I was going to type. Essentially, if the likelihood is high, but the punishment is extremely weak, it will have little to no deterrent effect, whereas if the likelihood of getting caught is high, and the punishment severe as well as the punishment being well known about, that would most definitely increase deterrence. So severity does in fact have a direct relation to deterrence.

 

Compare two scenarios:

a) 10% chance of getting 30 years in prison

b) 90% chance of getting 15 years in prison

 

I submit that the majority of criminals will take the risk in situation (a), but will not in situation (b) - simply because the likelihood of losing 15 years of their own freedoms is so much higher than the likelihood of losing 30 years.

 

You could impose the death penalty on every crime in existence, but if the chance of being caught is near-zero then criminals will more-than-likely keep going about their daily activities. On the other hand, if there is a 99% certainty of being stung for $10,000 each time you break the law, then crime rates will fall pretty sharply.

 

I can easily agree that if rates of capture are increased, the severity can be decreased. I have no disagreement with what you say in your response, actually. I am simply saying that were the rates of capture brought up from where they sit now, AND the severity increased for at least a short duration, the crime rate would have an even sharper decline.

[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?

 

 

What's the logic in nopt punishing them. Have you ever known a victim of a crime. How do they feel about that?

So punish people for revenge? Revenge is not logical. That makes both the victim and the criminal bad people in my eyes. Just because your emotions say you want to hurt them back, does not instantly make it OK.

 

If we started locking people up based on what the opposing party felt, everyone every charged with something would be spending years in prison.

 

So quite honestly, I don't care what the victim FEELS. I care about what the crime, and the motivation of the crime. I do not care about the emotions the victim or the criminal feel.

 

@Stardusk

 

People commonly make the argument the rape is good for passing genes, but it is the opposite. People who commit rape are out of the social norm, and have mental issues. Passing on the genes of someone with mental issues is not a good way to help the human gene pool.

 

"female victims are young, not old, which further supports the thesis of rape usually being about sex (or rather the inability to obtain it through normal means)."

 

Not really true, that is simply because a man would prefer to have sex with someone who is attractive. If its rape, the power thing is still there. The man just prefer to do such a thing with someone who is attractive.

 

That is not how evolution works. You should read the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Genes don't care or think and people rarely think about how helpful their DNA is to the gene pool, the point is to get your genes out there, good or bad, and rape is aevolutionary tool to do so, with minimal cost to the man. Once again, this says nothing about its ethics.

 

The second point is totally incoherent. Men prefer to have sex with young, attractive women because they are perceived as being more fertile, the same holds true for sex obtained through rape. If it were solely a power issue appearance would be irrelevant.

And why do you think humans find females within a certain age range more attractive? It is because they are fertile, it is not really a separation.

 

Genes do not have emotions or choices, but certain genes will likely effect ones mental state. If you are born with a mental disorder, it will come from your genes. Not saying that all rapists have a mental disorder at birth, but I think it is fair to speculate that a good chuck of them do.

 

Of course you are pretty much correct in that sense, my opinion is just based on what it seems like to me. I am not sure if there are any studies on the subject matter so I can't really verify what I am saying.

 

@ Sepherose Morals do change massively based on different people. I disagree with you in the sense that most people think it would be morally okay to murder and commit other crimes.

 

That being said, if there was a crime rate raise, it would only be temporary. You have to remember that punishments being lowered does not really mean prison time or the court system being changed. The people who would start going crazy would be locked up in a matter of years. After that it would seem the crime rate would go down more.

 

Also I may be incorrect, but what I got from that study is that they could not completely verify a connection between severity of punishment and the crime rate.

Edited July 15, 2011 by marharth

[kvnchrist]

I'm fairly sure that some people like women of a certain age is based on them not looking older. Look at Hugh Hefner.

[Sepherose]

@marharth

 

I must point out the flaw in your logic. Locking someone up IS a form of punishment, yet, you stand on the side "Why even bother punishing them?" leading me to believe that you would simply rather do away with punishment, meaning that crime rates would never drop as there would not be any locking them up, are you seeing the flaw here? If I have misinterpreted what you mean, please clarify, as that seems to be your stance.

[marharth]

@marharth

 

I must point out the flaw in your logic. Locking someone up IS a form of punishment, yet, you stand on the side "Why even bother punishing them?" leading me to believe that you would simply rather do away with punishment, meaning that crime rates would never drop as there would not be any locking them up, are you seeing the flaw here? If I have misinterpreted what you mean, please clarify, as that seems to be your stance.

I do not think locking someone up in itself is a form of punishment, I think the way prison is now is a form of punishment.

 

I think criminals should simply be separated into a different society that is similar to ours. Of course not the same, just similar.

 

Some people may be able to be "fixed" other will need to be permanently separated.

[Sepherose]

@marharth

 

I must point out the flaw in your logic. Locking someone up IS a form of punishment, yet, you stand on the side "Why even bother punishing them?" leading me to believe that you would simply rather do away with punishment, meaning that crime rates would never drop as there would not be any locking them up, are you seeing the flaw here? If I have misinterpreted what you mean, please clarify, as that seems to be your stance.

I do not think locking someone up in itself is a form of punishment, I think the way prison is now is a form of punishment.

 

I think criminals should simply be separated into a different society that is similar to ours. Of course not the same, just similar.

 

Some people may be able to be "fixed" other will need to be permanently separated.

 

That is essentially exile, and it is absolutely a form of punishment. That seem more like "punish them but not where I have to see it." A society like that would be so brutal as to be more inhumane than what I suggest, IMO. Look at Cambodia, for instance. Crime is rampant there, and children are born into that, breeding more criminals because that is how they have to be to survive. That would be absolutely abhorrent.

[Vagrant0]

 

(1) Would there be as many rapes if Prostitution was legal. I know rape isn't about sex, but about power, but could it not help with those who can't seem to catch the eye of a lady

 

(2) Would there be so much drug violence and overcrowding in our prisons if the lesser drugs like marijuana and hash were decriminalized. Would it not help in the increasing revenues and our sagging economy?

 

(3) Would we have as many problems to solve if we were to except a wider degree of humanity (gays, transsexuals, foreigners), and above all, listen to what they have to say.

 

Is it fear of the unknown that defines our comfort zone or the fear that we might find just how delusional that area of comfort is.

 

1. No... There was rape even when there was open prostitution and slavery. Those who can take it usually will. Most rapists (aside from the drunken fratboy type) aren't merely going through a dry spell. They are sick and deranged persons.

 

As for punishment for rape... First offense should be physical castration (all bits, mechanically removed), second should be death as long as there is substantial evidence. A prison sentence for a violent crime is like sending someone to school to learn how to be worse. Prisons should only be for people who have committed some crime that is redeemable... like theft or accidental death. Rape is not something that either person can put behind them... and is in many cases WORSE than murder.

 

2. initially, yes, but any benefit would undoubtedly be short lived as many of these drugs cause permanent damage to the user. The sudden influx of new addicts who are trying it because it's no longer illegal would be a net loss overall. But, this is a dead horse and there are about a dozen topics about this to one degree or another. Point is that it isn't going to happen as long as there is money being paid to make it not happen.

 

3. Yes, we would have just as many problems because in our nature we hold this "Us vs. Them" mentality that exists even in relatively homogeneous communities. Diversity and an open mind is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't work unless everyone shares these interests and there are active elements in a community to bring together members of different walks of life. Look at online communities for example, there is no outward indication of age, gender, nationality or orientation, yet people still find ways to group up and attack others.

 

But yes, most problem exist because we make them problems.

[marharth]

@marharth

 

I must point out the flaw in your logic. Locking someone up IS a form of punishment, yet, you stand on the side "Why even bother punishing them?" leading me to believe that you would simply rather do away with punishment, meaning that crime rates would never drop as there would not be any locking them up, are you seeing the flaw here? If I have misinterpreted what you mean, please clarify, as that seems to be your stance.

I do not think locking someone up in itself is a form of punishment, I think the way prison is now is a form of punishment.

 

I think criminals should simply be separated into a different society that is similar to ours. Of course not the same, just similar.

 

Some people may be able to be "fixed" other will need to be permanently separated.

 

That is essentially exile, and it is absolutely a form of punishment. That seem more like "punish them but not where I have to see it." A society like that would be so brutal as to be more inhumane than what I suggest, IMO. Look at Cambodia, for instance. Crime is rampant there, and children are born into that, breeding more criminals because that is how they have to be to survive. That would be absolutely abhorrent.

Exile? No.

 

Exile is done to be negative to the person, it is not the same as separating someone from society.

 

I only consider something punishment if it is done by a authoritative power and purposely negative.

 

Punishment is done so people "learn a lesson." That is not why people need to be separated from society, it is just so they do not commit crimes, and they can be rehabilitated.

Edited July 16, 2011 by marharth