Richards 0
Is society too heavily weighed in favour of the perpetrator and not the victim?
By
Newbie, in Speakers Corner
Richards 0
QuoteAs for violent crimes, there needs to be a reasonable middle-ground. If we jumo too quickly to harsh punishment, I think we will have a situation of all-or-nothing when criminals are cornered. It could actually spark more violent crime. To think that we can lock em up longer and enact deterrence is inane.
That same argument has been used with respect to police chases. The argument that if someone is trying to evade police they are likely to cause a crash so police should not pursue. I disagree. A judge can take into account other factors but once convicted there should be a reverse onus on the defence to explain why the maximum penalty is not required. If you are concerned about criminals reacting violently when cornered then we simply have to increase the penalties for resisting/evading arrest.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Quote
Yes a fair trial is a must, but whos definition of fair, The victims or perpetrators? That said, after a fair trial, if the person is found guilty, they should receive a sentence that makes them say "Oh shit I do not ever want to be here again", and makes other prospective criminals think twice.
For the most part, I don't think it's the punishment (whatever it is...jail, death penalty, whatever) that's the deterrant. It's the act of enforcement.
For example, most people speed on the freeway, even if it's only a few miles over the limit. You just get going with the flow of traffic and find yourself doing 70 instead of 65, and you don't think of it as a big deal... until you see a police officer. Then, you look at your spedometer and you slow down if you need to so you're going under the limit. It isn't the fact that it's illegal and punishable by a very expensive ticket, it's that the cop is there, and you're going to get caught. It wouldn't matter if the ticket fine was $25 or $2500. You're still going to slow down when you see a cop.
Richards 0
QuoteFor the most part, I don't think it's the punishment (whatever it is...jail, death penalty, whatever) that's the deterrant. It's the act of enforcement.
For example, most people speed on the freeway, even if it's only a few miles over the limit. You just get going with the flow of traffic and find yourself doing 70 instead of 65, and you don't think of it as a big deal... until you see a police officer. Then, you look at your spedometer and you slow down if you need to so you're going under the limit. It isn't the fact that it's illegal and punishable by a very expensive ticket, it's that the cop is there, and you're going to get caught. It wouldn't matter if the ticket fine was $25 or $2500. You're still going to slow down when you see a cop.
I see that to an extent, but you are speaking from the perspective of someone who respects the law. I do agree that all the penalty in the world means nothing if you will not get caught, but with respect to hardenned criminals I am not sure that the speeding analogy is entirely accurate. Many criminals do factor in minor fines and short jail sentences as the cost of doing business. Marginal benefit vs marginal cost. While you cannot get rid of crime I think that increasing the marginal cost will put some criminals out of the market. That said I think the presence of cops does help deter would be bad guys. Do think we should have more cops walking beats (as opposed to driving around in their bubble(car) so as to increase the presence?
Cheers,
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
I think more visible cops would equal less crime.
LargeBoy 0
i think NWA had the right attitude
fuck the police
fuck the police
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteAs for violent crimes, there needs to be a reasonable middle-ground. If we jumo too quickly to harsh punishment, I think we will have a situation of all-or-nothing when criminals are cornered. It could actually spark more violent crime. To think that we can lock em up longer and enact deterrence is inane.
That same argument has been used with respect to police chases. The argument that if someone is trying to evade police they are likely to cause a crash so police should not pursue. I disagree. A judge can take into account other factors but once convicted there should be a reverse onus on the defence to explain why the maximum penalty is not required. If you are concerned about criminals reacting violently when cornered then we simply have to increase the penalties for resisting/evading arrest.
Richards
So with police chases you say it's a good idea to pursue and kill innocent people as the perp runs lights?
As for sentencing, the onus is neutral; the prosecution brings in all aggravating circumstances and the defense mitigates. But as far as the logic goes, harsher punishment leads to essentially drawing teh line in the sand, only problem is when innocent people die in the process.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteFor the most part, I don't think it's the punishment (whatever it is...jail, death penalty, whatever) that's the deterrant. It's the act of enforcement.
For example, most people speed on the freeway, even if it's only a few miles over the limit. You just get going with the flow of traffic and find yourself doing 70 instead of 65, and you don't think of it as a big deal... until you see a police officer. Then, you look at your spedometer and you slow down if you need to so you're going under the limit. It isn't the fact that it's illegal and punishable by a very expensive ticket, it's that the cop is there, and you're going to get caught. It wouldn't matter if the ticket fine was $25 or $2500. You're still going to slow down when you see a cop.
I see that to an extent, but you are speaking from the perspective of someone who respects the law. I do agree that all the penalty in the world means nothing if you will not get caught, but with respect to hardenned criminals I am not sure that the speeding analogy is entirely accurate. Many criminals do factor in minor fines and short jail sentences as the cost of doing business. Marginal benefit vs marginal cost. While you cannot get rid of crime I think that increasing the marginal cost will put some criminals out of the market. That said I think the presence of cops does help deter would be bad guys. Do think we should have more cops walking beats (as opposed to driving around in their bubble(car) so as to increase the presence?
Cheers,
Richards
QuoteMany criminals do factor in minor fines and short jail sentences as the cost of doing business.
Most criminals don't have complex thought processes and teh ones that do rarely get caught. I don't see criminals factoring in the possibility of getting caught.
I understand your position and frustration with crime, but to lower the iron fist is unworkable, unrealistic and fruitless.
I am middle ground on this. We do not live in the dark ages so I think burning at the stake, or being stretched on the rack would be gratuitous acts of sadism.
That said spending fuckloads of dollars on tring to find ways of making execution pleasant (counsellors on hand for the condemned, choice of last meal, being given drugs in advance to help them feel calm, specialized expensive lethal injection machinery to put him to death peacefully, and endless whining when it appears that one or two of these clowns felt some discomfort.....I mean come on! What are these people...royalty? Modern hangings are quick enough, so are firing squads. There is some pain but it is quick and cheap.
Richards