Fines, jailtime, law and crime?

[derkvanl]

I'm just wondering what you all think about fining people, giving criminals jailtime. How well are our laws working in favor of society, do they really have a positive effect when it comes to fighting crime? Are the punishments to soft, do we need minimum / maximum punishments? Is it better to help people get back into social life, or should some people be locked away for life? What about death penalty? etc.

I posted this since one of the dutch politicians (we are still in the process of forming a parliament) called out for minimum sentences and maximum sentences in certain cases and longer jailtimes and harder actions against repeating offenders. And putting people under 18 on trial as adults when they allready have a record, and so on.

I don't think it 'll help to reduce crime numbers. What's next if this won't help, just kill every offender on sight? Can we solve the crime problem? I think crime is as old as humanity, if not older. Even other animals that live in groups murder, steal, rape, ban and punish members of their own (or other groups of the same species). We call that nature. Crime and punishment is something that we have in our roots, but the way we are dealing with it now is getting out of hand, imho. Our courts, police forces, lawyers, judges, politics worldwide are failing in crimefighting.

I'lld like to see some points of view on this.

 

[RichardMNixon]

The death penalty in particular is a terrible joke. In America, it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life because of all the extra litigation. I'm sure in less death-happy countries it would be even worse.

There needs to be some punishment though, especially for repeat offenders.

For shoplifting and minor crimes by the impoverished though, it would be interesting to see social programs as an alternative for prison. If you're caught stealing food: go to prison, or be offered a paying job cleaning parks and public spaces.

 

[WarK]

The death penalty in particular is a terrible joke. In America, it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life because of all the extra litigation. I'm sure in less death-happy countries it would be even worse.

The single biggest problem with death penalty I have is that there's no way to avoid killing innocent people. Other funny thing is that death penalty costs so much money which may mean that you don't need to be that thorough when you're sentencing someone to life in prison.

There needs to be some punishment though, especially for repeat offenders.

Personally I don't care that much for punishment (I guess if it involved me personally I might have different opinion).
For me the main point should be to keep dangerous people away from society so they can't hurt more people.

For shoplifting and minor crimes by the impoverished though, it would be interesting to see social programs as an alternative for prison. If you're caught stealing food: go to prison, or be offered a paying job cleaning parks and public spaces.

yeah, locking up a teenager seems like a perfect way of creating another criminal


As for increasing sentences, I don't think this is the way. I think making punishment inevitable would work better. Then again, unless someone is "professional" criminal, I don't think people take the possible punishment into account when they're committing a crime.


As a side note, I'd definitely prefer death sentence than to spend the rest of my life in prison

 

[Nemesiah]

Punishment, while not saciating the offended party, doesn,´t rehabilitate de criminal.

Labor (to repay what can be reapid and pay for his / her rehabilitation)
Education
History
Ethics
Philosophy
Psycological evaluation
Detoxification
Excersice
Wholesome nutrition
Private quarters

Yes to prissions but not as institutions of punishment but rehabilitation.

If you want to really screw over a criminal make him / her understand yust how much damage his / her transgression caused.

I understad that the offended party wants to harm the offending party for retribution but as a society we have to go beyond an eye for an eye, it's the 21st century, we have to cut it with legal concepts from 3000 + years ago

That would breed less reincidence (like in japan) and a healthier society

Sadly most religions like their punisments and subsequently people do as well

 

[RichardMNixon]

I understad that the offended party wants to harm the offending party for retribution but as a society we have to go beyond an eye for an eye, it's the 21st century, we have to cut it with legal concepts from 3000 + years ago

Less eye for an eye and more deterrent.

The question is, would more people steal if the penalty was only a slap on the wrist? I'm not sure.

 

[Predanator]

What about reprogramming people!

 

[Aught3]

What about reprogramming people!

Or we could preprogramme them better? :lol:

There are many legitimate reasons to have a prison system. It removes those who have proven detrimental from the society they harmed preventing them from acting again. It gives the victims a sense of justice and satiates their desire for revenge. It also provides a deterrent to would-be criminals to stop them from committing their crimes in the first place.

As an alternate system the South African truth and reconciliation committees after Apartheid are a good example. The people who committed the crimes came before several judges and confessed their guilt to the victims family, they then offered ways that they could try and repay the family for the loss they caused. I realise that many career criminals couldn't care less about the people they hurt but it might be a good system for first time offenders for whom jail will do more harm than good.

 

[Nemesiah]

What about reprogramming people!

Or we could preprogramme them better? :lol:

There are many legitimate reasons to have a prison system. It removes those who have proven detrimental from the society they harmed preventing them from acting again. It gives the victims a sense of justice and satiates their desire for revenge. It also provides a deterrent to would-be criminals to stop them from committing their crimes in the first place.

As an alternate system the South African truth and reconciliation committees after Apartheid are a good example. The people who committed the crimes came before several judges and confessed their guilt to the victims family, they then offered ways that they could try and repay the family for the loss they caused. I realise that many career criminals couldn't care less about the people they hurt but it might be a good system for first time offenders for whom jail will do more harm than good.

The question I think is; are "career criminals" evil individuals or mentaly ill people? I don,´t say that there is no accountability but should they be teated with hate and revenge (as in many prission systems around the world) or should they be treated as people that were not in full use of their mental capabilities.

In Mexico the drug cartels prey upon fearfull and destituted individuals to create armies of drugdealers and hitmen that when questioned have said that at the time they felt they had no choice; others frustated with not attainig the media fed ideal life (which in Mexico insultingly enough includes a change in skin colour) turn to drugdealing as a way of attaining the reality the TV says is within reach.

Sure these people have done evil deeds and some of them may be truly roten to the core bastards, but can we build a healthier society by taking the disfunctional individual and alienating them from said society. I believe that no one here advocates the death sentence as an effective crime detterent; could it be that punishment is also innefective?

I understand that our society and culture makes it very hard to think of criminals as patients, but so far we have come to accept that Schizophrenia makes people do things they would not otherwise do. Would it be possible then to accept that the media riden imaginary world with the striper wife, 2 hummers in the minimantion, "Cardasian delusion" is distorting individuals who for lack of an eduction can't distiguish between reality and fantasy?

We like to think criminals are evil people, but can we be sure that crime is not something to be prevented with education, health care, social programs etc... This of course would mean that society would have to accept its role in creating (or not diagnosing) criminals; and this would be a sever blow to the neo.liberal way of thinking that everyones greed will make for a better future.

In Mexico there has been a new wave of kidnapings (For the reccor I believe kidnapping is a heinous crime) but one has to wonder if there would be this many kidnappings in a more just society with a better distributted wealth. People would have to come to terms with the fact that maybe it is their being filthy rich in dirt poor country that makes them targets of such attrocities.

In Mexico affluent people are seen (now more than ever) surrounded by bodyguards, investing in bullet proof cars and clothing, asking for the death pennalty for kidnapers, building taller walls around their houses; putting their kids in more expensive shools so they won,´t mingle with the rabble etc... Would they need such protection if they took twice what they invested instead of 75 times? and with the rest of the money pay better salaries, found social programs? pay their taxes?

Can't we accept that the quality of life comes not from how many hummers you own but by how free you feel to leave your door unlocked at night?

I think that prissions are todays way of putting our mistakes out of sight and out of mind, and I think we should start to own up to them and try to fix them.

 

[derkvanl]

The question is, would more people steal if the penalty was only a slap on the wrist? I'm not sure.

I don't think that someone who steals, considers the punishment when he's acting, I also don't think that "fair" people will start stealing because there's less punishment.

I agree with Nemisiah that the way we treat criminals should focus more on rehabilitation and preventing further criminal acts.

But a big problem with changing the system of punishments into a system of rehabilitation is that a lot of the victims would like to see people locked away for what they did. It would not only require a major rebuild of our justice-system, but also a major turn in attitude of the non-criminal people.

 

[Unwardil]

Actually, to your first point, I'd argue that a thinking professional absolutely considers how much jail time he will receive if he is caught and he plans his robberies accordingly, figuring out how to liquidate his money and keep it frozen in a safe place until the statute of limitations can run out.

The general life plan is to steal enough in your youth, keep enough hidden away, then get sent to prison for maybe five to ten years, out in seven, then cash in and go semi legit to retire in comfort at age 40.

Beats the hell out of formal education for a lot of people, especially if you spend say, 2 years in prison as a young adult and get to know the older guys who are going to do this very thing when they get out and are perfectly happy to make friends with the big youngsters.

Obviously this is not your majority of petty criminal, but it would be untrue to say that criminals don't consider the punishment they will receive.

 

[Mapp]

There's a great book on this topic called: The Rich Get Richer, The Poor Go to Prison. If you look at the way the penal code is structured in most countries, particularly the U.S., you'll notice that, when regard to theft, the biggest sentences tend to fall on crimes typically of the poor taking from the rich. Hard time in a maximum security prison goes to people who steal cars, for instance, or who mug people on the street. People who run massive ponzi schemes that collapse, ruining the pensions of hundreds of people tend to spend shorter sentences in minimum security prisons. Now, if you space out the harm done by the two individuals: the car thief or Berni Madoff, it would seem that it should be Madoff making license plates and risking his ass in general population for the next twenty five years of his life, not the car thief.

 

[RichardMNixon]

The question is, would more people steal if the penalty was only a slap on the wrist? I'm not sure.

I don't think that someone who steals, considers the punishment when he's acting, I also don't think that "fair" people will start stealing because there's less punishment.

I definitely disagree with you when considering shoplifting teenagers; it's the armed robbery I'm less sure of. Though I could imagine more muggings would end in murder if murder wasn't punished significantly more than mugging.

 

[lrkun]

I'm just wondering what you all think about fining people, giving criminals jailtime. How well are our laws working in favor of society, do they really have a positive effect when it comes to fighting crime? Are the punishments to soft, do we need minimum / maximum punishments? Is it better to help people get back into social life, or should some people be locked away for life? What about death penalty? etc.

I posted this since one of the dutch politicians (we are still in the process of forming a parliament) called out for minimum sentences and maximum sentences in certain cases and longer jailtimes and harder actions against repeating offenders. And putting people under 18 on trial as adults when they allready have a record, and so on.

I don't think it 'll help to reduce crime numbers. What's next if this won't help, just kill every offender on sight? Can we solve the crime problem? I think crime is as old as humanity, if not older. Even other animals that live in groups murder, steal, rape, ban and punish members of their own (or other groups of the same species). We call that nature. Crime and punishment is something that we have in our roots, but the way we are dealing with it now is getting out of hand, imho. Our courts, police forces, lawyers, judges, politics worldwide are failing in crimefighting.

I'lld like to see some points of view on this.

Penal laws are there to secure public safety. It is enforced to ensure that the public adheres to the accepted norms of conduct. Failure to do so will be penalized by such laws. The reason for making such is to prevent others in doing that which is hurtful to society, and once done, punishes the offender. The offender in turn will serve as an example that others will not do similar acts.

Sure there are people who violate the law, not because they want to, but most of the time, because of their circumstance in life. Being poor for example is one such reason.

I like these laws. They are necessary for now untill we can develop something that is more effective. Sometimes the law may be harsh, but it is a necessity.

 

[derkvanl]

I'm just wondering what you all think about fining people, giving criminals jailtime. How well are our laws working in favor of society, do they really have a positive effect when it comes to fighting crime? Are the punishments to soft, do we need minimum / maximum punishments? Is it better to help people get back into social life, or should some people be locked away for life? What about death penalty? etc.

I posted this since one of the dutch politicians (we are still in the process of forming a parliament) called out for minimum sentences and maximum sentences in certain cases and longer jailtimes and harder actions against repeating offenders. And putting people under 18 on trial as adults when they allready have a record, and so on.

I don't think it 'll help to reduce crime numbers. What's next if this won't help, just kill every offender on sight? Can we solve the crime problem? I think crime is as old as humanity, if not older. Even other animals that live in groups murder, steal, rape, ban and punish members of their own (or other groups of the same species). We call that nature. Crime and punishment is something that we have in our roots, but the way we are dealing with it now is getting out of hand, imho. Our courts, police forces, lawyers, judges, politics worldwide are failing in crimefighting.

I'lld like to see some points of view on this.

Penal laws are there to secure public safety. It is enforced to ensure that the public adheres to the accepted norms of conduct. Failure to do so will be penalized by such laws. The reason for making such is to prevent others in doing that which is hurtful to society, and once done, punishes the offender. The offender in turn will serve as an example that others will not do similar acts.

imho this is something that's not working. It doesn't have that desired effect of setting examples.

Sure there are people who violate the law, not because they want to, but most of the time, because of their circumstance in life. Being poor for example is one such reason.

My country (Netherlands) have social services that provide enough for people to live and they shouldnt need to steal to live. This might be the issue in other countries, though.

And also being poor is no reason for raping, killing, speeding, abuse, etc...

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Heavy fines like $500, $1000 or even $5000 are great ways of ensuring good behavior in citizens. When they work well, they are appreciated by the people themselves. Only when a particular citizen actually gets to pay such a fine, he walks through hell. Imagine months of your hard earned salary just going into the government treasury just like that. The poor gets poorer, and government gets richer.

 

[lrkun]

imho this is something that's not working. It doesn't have that desired effect of setting examples.

But it is working, or supposing it doesn't what do you suggest as an alternative?

My country (Netherlands) have social services that provide enough for people to live and they shouldnt need to steal to live. This might be the issue in other countries, though.

And also being poor is no reason for raping, killing, speeding, abuse, etc...

I am sure people have their own reasons for doing, despite the better judgement for doing so. So what do you think is the reason for their acts, if not circumstances?

 

[Nemesiah]

imho this is something that's not working. It doesn't have that desired effect of setting examples.

But it is working, or supposing it doesn't what do you suggest as an alternative?

My country (Netherlands) have social services that provide enough for people to live and they shouldnt need to steal to live. This might be the issue in other countries, though.

And also being poor is no reason for raping, killing, speeding, abuse, etc...

I am sure people have their own reasons for doing, despite the better judgement for doing so. So what do you think is the reason for their acts, if not circumstances?

So what do you think is the reason for their acts, if not circumstances?

I believe in many cases it is the indoctrination from de media to try to strive for a fantasy life like the one people see in The kardasians, the adds, the better car, the bigger tv, the blonder wife with the bigger chest etc... People who want to live like the fantasy can never have enough, be it the kids in the gangs with the "thug life" (is that correct?) attitude, or the Madoff fiends that amass billionare wealths.

It is also the status quo which makes people see Paris Hilton as a role model and not as a grotesque slap to the world, the hummers on the street, people see them and instead of feeling revulsion, find those things desirable because mr T.V. said they were.

There are many other factors of course, I just think that the media fulled fantasy life is a much bigger one that we are used to think.

 

[lrkun]

I believe in many cases it is the indoctrination from de media to try to strive for a fantasy life like the one people see in The kardasians, the adds, the better car, the bigger tv, the blonder wife with the bigger chest etc... People who want to live like the fantasy can never have enough, be it the kids in the gangs with the "thug life" (is that correct?) attitude, or the Madoff fiends that amass billionare wealths.

It is also the status quo which makes people see Paris Hilton as a role model and not as a grotesque slap to the world, the hummers on the street, people see them and instead of feeling revulsion, find those things desirable because mr T.V. said they were.

There are many other factors of course, I just think that the media fulled fantasy life is a much bigger one that we are used to think.

So the issue is whether or not a normal person has the capacity for critical thinking?

What do you think should we do? I'll give an example, then you do so.

For example. Logic is a good thing to start with regards to learning the basics.

 

[Nemesiah]

I believe in many cases it is the indoctrination from de media to try to strive for a fantasy life like the one people see in The kardasians, the adds, the better car, the bigger tv, the blonder wife with the bigger chest etc... People who want to live like the fantasy can never have enough, be it the kids in the gangs with the "thug life" (is that correct?) attitude, or the Madoff fiends that amass billionare wealths.

It is also the status quo which makes people see Paris Hilton as a role model and not as a grotesque slap to the world, the hummers on the street, people see them and instead of feeling revulsion, find those things desirable because mr T.V. said they were.

There are many other factors of course, I just think that the media fulled fantasy life is a much bigger one that we are used to think.

So the issue is whether or not a normal person has the capacity for critical thinking?

What do you think should we do? I'll give an example, then you do so.

For example. Logic is a good thing to start with regards to learning the basics.

What do you think should we do? I'll give an example, then you do so.

For example. Logic is a good thing to start with regards to learning the basics.

Ban advertising, make a publicist raid and put them in a rocket straight to the sun.... ah! if only...

But seriosly: While we cannot have censorship there needs to be some kind of counterweight to the medias influence on the people's mind, limit the idiot TV to 2 hours a day, the rest of the day have cultural shows (no the discovery chanel's ghost hunters doesn,´t count) have discusions, panelists, creation vs evolution, communism, vs capitalism, euthanasia vs church, etc...

Better yet take the TV out to the curb and leave it there.

People have come to think about TV like this cute harmless provider of entertainment when it really is a gateway to hell.

,¡Oh, bill!, dont mind him he is just exagerating.

No I,´m not, put a kit 5 hours a day infront of the TV and by age 6 the poor thing can,´t say no to anything, it has seen so many comercials they are engraved on their mind FOR LIFE. I still remember commercials from my TV nanny.

That kid will have likes, dislikes, obsesions and traumas manufactured so that some company can sell its toy

Then we go to video games... (Nintendo, I want my childhood back!... )a computer at least has the remedial quality that one can do actual work on it and come to discussion boards...

Mr. TV is not your friend;

That is my advise make both the advertisers and the TV homeless.

 

[derkvanl]

imho this is something that's not working. It doesn't have that desired effect of setting examples.

But it is working, or supposing it doesn't what do you suggest as an alternative?,¨,¨

Does death penalty prevent murder, do speeding tickets prevent people from driving too fast, does some jailtime prevent thiefs from stealing?

An alternative? I don't think it's possible just to come up with something else, that can replace our system, to deal with our daily "criminal" problems. But maybe some different approach might. Our primary goal now is fighting / catching the criminal in order to put him in jail for what he did (take it in the broad sense, I can't list all criminal activity in 1 sentence). Another high priority is helping the victim. Nothing wrong with that at first, but when this is over, it ends. Only in the worst cases where everyone says "this can never happen again" we look a bit further.

My country (Netherlands) have social services that provide enough for people to live and they shouldnt need to steal to live. This might be the issue in other countries, though.

And also being poor is no reason for raping, killing, speeding, abuse, etc...

I am sure people have their own reasons for doing, despite the better judgement for doing so. So what do you think is the reason for their acts, if not circumstances?

I'm not a psychologist, but what about being part of a group, selfishness, show-off, jealousy, love, anger, need for power, greed. Some people will allways find a reason for not behaving themselves and will allways have an (unreasonable) excuse for it.

@Nemesiah
I hardly watch 2 hrs TV a week. I agree that the influence of TV and "old" media is part of the problem.

*more tomorrow, off to sleep*