For one thing we could end our ridiculous and disingenuous war on drugs. If our history has taught us anything, it's that prohibition doesn't work. Legalize and regulate everything, make the legal age 21, and keep the real criminals in jail.
It's kind of sad to see so much violent crime in one of the most advanced nations in the world yet see limited law enforcement resources go toward locking up people for having poor habits. The war on drugs has been a boon for drug cartels the same way alcohol prohibition birthed organized crime in the 1920s. This has also led to the problems spreading past the borders into places like Mexico, in which drug cartels have thrived and caused so much damage.
The problems it creates seem worse than the problems it attempts to (and fails to) solve. Not just on drugs, but in general I think "no victim, no crime", while a cliche, is a good policy. I'm scared to even drive through some areas in the city, but the police concentrate on arresting people for what they chose to do in their private lives. Bernie Madoff robbed people blind for thirty years, but the feds were busy putting Martha Stewart in jail for receiving "non public information"- sorry, for covering up the fact that she received non public information so that she wouldn't go to jail for hurting nobody. However, while Madoff is finally in jail (where he is treated as mafia don according to his daughter in law) Martha Stewart is out on the streets again. Hide yo kids, hide yo wife.
@TJ_Hooker I don't think there are many sources to gather information about that (the nespapers here just talk about celebrities, football and politics, oh, and car accidents), I live in argentina, and from what I see, hear and know, most of the crimes are made by people under the effect of drugs, plus, I wrote that from my phone and made out a typo (autocorrect fixes typos, but it doesn't recognize human errors on percentages :P), so it should be 55% (yeah my hands are freaking big enough to miss a 9 for 5, and iPhone's keyboard is _small_), not 95%.
@CrevsDaak $100/month would *not* pay for prison expenses. Looks like the us federal prison system spends $20,000 a year per prisoner. (No time to find a good source but I did google it) And, especially seeing as inmates don't have jobs, that would be something we call in the us "cruel and unusual punishment" which is banned by the constitution.
@meagloth OK, I didn't know that the us' constitution says so, nor how much money is spent on a prisoner, but really, do you think the government should care that much about criminals? Now that I think of it, maybe exile is better than jail, but yeah, worlds may be big but in this cases you realize it isn't
@CrevsDaak Really?! Imagine someone is dirt poor. He is a victim of a combination of circumstances and questionable choices, but he by any count, not half bad of a guy. He is driven by poverty to steal say, 1k worth of jewelry to feed his children. He is quickly apprehended, and faces 6 months in prison. He cannot pay for his own food living on the street, let alone in prison; with no opportunities. He "starves to death in a hole". Is that the kind of place you want to live? And you did say you didn't like the death sentence, and then seemingly prescribed it for the majority of inmates, regardless of the crime. Go starve in a hole hardly seems to be a ligament punishment for anything, especially simple poverty.
Yeah, not everyone in prison is some heinous rat-bastard. As @meagloth says, they could just be some guy, no better or worse than the rest of us, who made a mistake.
Honestly, to me people who advocate 'tough on crime' policy come across as being more interested in satisfying their own desire for vengeance (with a touch of schadenfreude) than actually bettering society. Because if you're actually interested on bettering society, you focus on rehabilitation, not punishment. In fact, if you try to make prisons into hell-holes, you're just going to make it more likely that prisoners will turn into the heinous rat-bastards you imagine them to be.
Also, it seems to me that charging inmates for their incarceration would just skew the justice system against the poor even more than it already is.
@meagloth that man isn't committing a crime as murder or rape (this comes from the fact that in spanish, crime and steal are two different things, if you steal, you are a robber, if you kill, _then_ you area criminal, and me, not knowing it also means steal in english, said this), and, in any way could be considered as a threat to society. In that case, I'd offer that person a job, and don't let him get out of the country for and accorded time (maybe 6 months or an year) and block other things from that person, but not jail. Maybe force him to pay half of what he stole too.
If someone was poor enough so his children could not be fed, it is not his fault (unless he decides not to work), it is mostly the actual economical system that plagues the world, why? Because it aims to the accumulation of money on rich enterprises, and not an economical equality among the population. This generates the "fourth world" which is the people that is cast out because of their lack of money or missing primary and secondary education, it is the government's fault because of adhering to a flawed economical system, so I see no reason to punish this person because of stealing to fed his children.
@CrevsDaak I see. But still, "go starve in a hole"? Doesn't that seem just a little extreme?
Yes, it just seems to me a little bit evil, repressive and it seems like if I were abusing of my power and making the state commit a crime... Anyway is sounds better to me than the system present nowadays.
Im from Ireland politicians are fairly redundant now, we live in capitalist society and we have zero control over our sovereignty now, Brussels and the IMF send the budget and we follow . After the property collapse and the economic downturn the Celtic tiger died. Reckless spending, short sighted self serving politicians and zero regulation on our banks nearly left the country bankrupt and will probably cripple the country with legacy debt for generations to come, Its such a pity too because Ireland was so close to being something great but ridiculous stupid old men made a complete bollocks of it, tragic.
Yeah, not everyone in prison is some heinous rat-bastard. As @meagloth says, they could just be some guy, no better or worse than the rest of us, who made a mistake.
Honestly, to me people who advocate 'tough on crime' policy come across as being more interested in satisfying their own desire for vengeance (with a touch of schadenfreude) than actually bettering society. Because if you're actually interested on bettering society, you focus on rehabilitation, not punishment. In fact, if you try to make prisons into hell-holes, you're just going to make it more likely that prisoners will turn into the heinous rat-bastards you imagine them to be.
Also, it seems to me that charging inmates for their incarceration would just skew the justice system against the poor even more than it already is.
Yeah, see, this is something I've been stewing on for a while. @CrevsDaak
It isn't the position of the government to judge or punish. The state *must* remain true neutral, of you will. It does not, or rather *cannot* care if something is right or wrong. That is the place of God, faith, and/or the individual conscience. The government only exists to benefit society as a whole, and I think this has been distorted over time. So when a law is made, the question should not be "should people be allowed to do this?" But "is allowing people to do this harming society". See, your business is your business, as long as it stays that way. An individual should have unlimited rights and freedom, until it Infringes on the rights and freedoms of his neighbor.
So more to the point, this is why jail as a concept(and some other things like drugs and gay rights, but not on topic) don't make any sense to me. The question should not be "how can we punish/bring these people to justice?". Why would we punish these people? What's done is done. Punishment should not be about justice. Justice is irrelevant. It's simply revenge dealt by a third party, and what good is that? The question should be "how can we stop these people from doing this again. Punishment should be a preventative measure, not some convoluted bureaucratic revenge scheme. And sometimes, punishment works. And sometimes it doesn't.
Each case should be evaluated individually. There should not be set jail times for each crime. If someone who is usually not violent kills/incapacitated his neighbor for sleeping with his wife and it's unlikely it will happen again, he should be sentenced to therapy, brief(a few years) locked up, and then released with a plethora of restrictions on his life thereafter, and something like annual check-ups.
If a psychopath goes on a rampage and kills 10 people he should be locked up forever. He is beyond hope, and cannot be trusted in the real world. Here would be the only time I would consider the death penalty. See, if someone Is crazy beyond all hope, and if he where to live at all it would be in a rubber room for his whole life, would not death be a mercy, rather than punishment? A sane person who kills 10 people should be locked up for the rest of his life, so that he may think on his sins. Death for him would be certainly be a relief he by no means deserves.
meagloth, I think you speak too much in "idealistic" terms, more than in reality terms.
Well, yes. I'm not say that this is the way it could be. I'm saying this is the way we should think of government. Not as something that dictates right and wrong, but something only there to benefit society as a whole. My examples are a bit exaggerated to demonstrate my point.
I wonder just how much of a prison you could automate to reduce staffing costs. . . I also don't see why they get decent food. A plate of gruel a day would be fine. There are homeless people the government isn't giving a plate of gruel a day to, so I don't see why the criminals should get decent meals.
I wonder just how much of a prison you could automate to reduce staffing costs. . . I also don't see why they get decent food. A plate of gruel a day would be fine. There are homeless people the government isn't giving a plate of gruel a day to, so I don't see why the criminals should get decent meals.
Machines aren't very good at emergencies though, and that's kinda an issue with prisons.
I accept that prisons should probably not be nice places, but they have a purpose to serve. They take people who have broken the law, confine them, and then release them to reintegrate with the populace. A prison should release people who are rehabilitated, safe to be around and with the skills to live independently and find work. The more dangerous and unpleasant a prison is, the more dangerous and unpleasant inmates need to become to survive it. Thus deliberately harsh conditions seem incompatible with their purpose.
Dostoyevsky said it well: "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons". They are a microcosm both of the people society deems dangerous and of the humanity and mercy in that society.
Yeah, see, this is something I've been stewing on for a while. @CrevsDaak
It isn't the position of the government to judge or punish. The state *must* remain true neutral, of you will. It does not, or rather *cannot* care if something is right or wrong. That is the place of God, faith, and/or the individual conscience. The government only exists to benefit society as a whole, and I think this has been distorted over time.
"Benefit to society" is almost always a moral judgement of some sort.
I also completely disagree with your view on the role of government. A public school dropping five students so that it might better educate the remaining 25 in a class might benefit society "as a whole" (whatever that means) but is by no means a just way to run a system.
@meagloth actually, I'd leave the talk of murdering psychopaths or 'sane' people outside this discussion, unless you want to start a new one (where you already say what you shouldn't by making a division between a 'sane' and 'crazy' person). Killing a psychopath because you can trust him is even worse--you're making a clear division between sane and mad people (and let me add that madness is subjective and it's not condition), which some (and I'm one of those who would) could/will put in the same list as racism.
It isn't the position of the government to judge or punish. The state *must* remain true neutral, of you will. It does not, or rather *cannot* care if something is right or wrong. That is the place of God, faith, and/or the individual conscience. The government only exists to benefit society as a whole, and I think this has been distorted over time.
Uhm... No. So, let's say an atheist commits murder, so no one judges him? (I am keeping this simple to stay away from a debate about faiths). And if the government is entitled to do so, it's failing even *more* now (take Boo's point for example), besides, there shouldn't be "a whole", people have to be treated as individuals, not as a mass of tall (otherwise the consideration would have been correct for children j/k) gibberlings with the same array of opinions, ideals, their different ways of thinking, political ideas and considerations and even their personalty.
It isn't the position of the government to judge or punish. The state *must* remain true neutral, of you will. It does not, or rather *cannot* care if something is right or wrong. That is the place of God, faith, and/or the individual conscience. The government only exists to benefit society as a whole, and I think this has been distorted over time.
Uhm... No. So, let's say an atheist commits murder, so no one judges him? (I am keeping this simple to stay away from a debate about faiths).
I'm not sure I get what you're saying here, so I'm just going to take this one bit. No, everybody judges him. Judge all you want. What does it matter that he's an atheist, btw? The government doesn't judge, it simply takes measures against it happening again.(jail time, therapy, whatever.). Benefits society as a whole.
It isn't the position of the government to judge or punish. The state *must* remain true neutral, of you will. It does not, or rather *cannot* care if something is right or wrong. That is the place of God, faith, and/or the individual conscience.
The government doesn't judge, it simply takes measures against it happening again.(jail time, therapy, whatever.).
It takes measures according to what the judges that were in the trial accord to do and what sentences their chose, accordingly to the crime (or steal) that was committed, it does both things: it judges and then punishes (accordingly to the judgment).
If someone was poor enough so his children could not be fed, it is not his fault (unless he decides not to work), it is mostly the actual economical system that plagues the world, why? Because it aims to the accumulation of money on rich enterprises, and not an economical equality among the population. This generates the "fourth world" which is the people that is cast out because of their lack of money or missing primary and secondary education, it is the government's fault because of adhering to a flawed economical system, so I see no reason to punish this person because of stealing to fed his children.
I'm no expert on prisons in either my own country or others. But for many crimes prison (or any punishment) is not an effective deterrent regardless of how unpleasant it may be. Many people breaking laws, even serious ones, do not consider what would happen if they were caught. Sometimes this is due to lack of foresight, because a crime is committed on the "spur of the moment", or because it is fuelled by a need (such as addiction) that overrides these considerations.
Pretty much the only type of crime I can think of where harsher sentencing might effectively deter crime is "white-collar" crime like fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion and insider trading. These are more likely to be carried out systematically by otherwise "respectable" individuals with a lot to gain by breaking the law and a lot to lose if caught.
I'd had a quick read about the Italian justice system and it's pretty radically different from the adversarial systems used in most western nations. No jury, heavy involvement of both prosecutors and defense lawyers in the evidence gathering stages and a number of other differences. I'm not sure you'd have to commit three seperate murders before the authorities decided to lock you up though, @Sergio.
Fair enough, the Italian Justice system is pretty screwed up. I still think it's a separate issue to the nature of the prison system and approach to rehabilitation.
What happens with people who cannot be rehabilitated? Or who are serving life sentences with no chance for parole? Should they have the same luxuries? I wouldn't been feeding them nice food and educating them if they will never get out. . .
I'm still a fan of harsher justice but that's just me. There are far to many people getting of with light sentences for crimes that ruin honest peoples lives.
infuriating story I heard yesterday. A woman who works at McDonald's, who in the past often brought her daughter to work and she kept herself occupied with a laptop. She was burglarized and the daughter's laptop stolen. As she working for a low wage and can't possibly afford daycare, she gives her daughter a cell phone for emergencies and let's her go to a popular nearby park to play. Her daughter is 9 years old.
Long story short, this woman was ARRESTED for child endangerment, now faces investigation by child protective services, and lost the horrible job she was clinging to for survival. In what universe is it unacceptable for a 9 year old child to be unaccompanied at a neighborhood park?? I see 6 or 7 year old kids riding bikes in my neighborhood (gasp) by themselves every single day. I can't remember even having to ask permission to go to the park most summer days when I was that age. Where did the idea that parents can never let their kids get more than 5 feet from their side come from?? Also, need I even mention the fact that the woman who was arrested was, of course, African-American. This arrest would have NEVER taken place if it was a middle-class white mother instead of a poor black one. We are without a doubt one of the stupidest countries on Earth when you consider how we SHOULD act, and how we actually conduct things in our society.
Long story short, this woman was ARRESTED for child endangerment, now faces investigation by child protective services, and lost the horrible job she was clinging to for survival. In what universe is it unacceptable for a 9 year old child to be unaccompanied at a neighborhood park?? I see 6 or 7 year old kids riding bikes in my neighborhood (gasp) by themselves every single day. I can't remember even having to ask permission to go to the park most summer days when I was that age. Where did the idea that parents can never let their kids get more than 5 feet from their side come from?? Also, need I even mention the fact that the woman who was arrested was, of course, African-American. This arrest would have NEVER taken place if it was a middle-class white mother instead of a poor black one. We are without a doubt one of the stupidest countries on Earth when you consider how we SHOULD act, and how we actually conduct things in our society.
Blame the nosy busy-body who called 911 in the first place. You would be amazed at how many problems would be resolved if people would mind their own business. This mother was making the best of a bad situation yet now because someone acted without knowing their circumstances the situation has been made significantly worse for both the mother and the child.
Were you aware that the mother has now also been fired from her job at McDonald's?
Comments
It's kind of sad to see so much violent crime in one of the most advanced nations in the world yet see limited law enforcement resources go toward locking up people for having poor habits. The war on drugs has been a boon for drug cartels the same way alcohol prohibition birthed organized crime in the 1920s. This has also led to the problems spreading past the borders into places like Mexico, in which drug cartels have thrived and caused so much damage.
The problems it creates seem worse than the problems it attempts to (and fails to) solve. Not just on drugs, but in general I think "no victim, no crime", while a cliche, is a good policy. I'm scared to even drive through some areas in the city, but the police concentrate on arresting people for what they chose to do in their private lives. Bernie Madoff robbed people blind for thirty years, but the feds were busy putting Martha Stewart in jail for receiving "non public information"- sorry, for covering up the fact that she received non public information so that she wouldn't go to jail for hurting nobody. However, while Madoff is finally in jail (where he is treated as mafia don according to his daughter in law) Martha Stewart is out on the streets again. Hide yo kids, hide yo wife.
Imagine someone is dirt poor. He is a victim of a combination of circumstances and questionable choices, but he by any count, not half bad of a guy. He is driven by poverty to steal say, 1k worth of jewelry to feed his children. He is quickly apprehended, and faces 6 months in prison. He cannot pay for his own food living on the street, let alone in prison; with no opportunities. He "starves to death in a hole". Is that the kind of place you want to live?
And you did say you didn't like the death sentence, and then seemingly prescribed it for the majority of inmates, regardless of the crime. Go starve in a hole hardly seems to be a ligament punishment for anything, especially simple poverty.
Honestly, to me people who advocate 'tough on crime' policy come across as being more interested in satisfying their own desire for vengeance (with a touch of schadenfreude) than actually bettering society. Because if you're actually interested on bettering society, you focus on rehabilitation, not punishment. In fact, if you try to make prisons into hell-holes, you're just going to make it more likely that prisoners will turn into the heinous rat-bastards you imagine them to be.
Also, it seems to me that charging inmates for their incarceration would just skew the justice system against the poor even more than it already is.
If someone was poor enough so his children could not be fed, it is not his fault (unless he decides not to work), it is mostly the actual economical system that plagues the world, why? Because it aims to the accumulation of money on rich enterprises, and not an economical equality among the population. This generates the "fourth world" which is the people that is cast out because of their lack of money or missing primary and secondary education, it is the government's fault because of adhering to a flawed economical system, so I see no reason to punish this person because of stealing to fed his children.
It isn't the position of the government to judge or punish. The state *must* remain true neutral, of you will. It does not, or rather *cannot* care if something is right or wrong. That is the place of God, faith, and/or the individual conscience. The government only exists to benefit society as a whole, and I think this has been distorted over time. So when a law is made, the question should not be "should people be allowed to do this?" But "is allowing people to do this harming society". See, your business is your business, as long as it stays that way. An individual should have unlimited rights and freedom, until it Infringes on the rights and freedoms of his neighbor.
So more to the point, this is why jail as a concept(and some other things like drugs and gay rights, but not on topic) don't make any sense to me.
The question should not be "how can we punish/bring these people to justice?". Why would we punish these people? What's done is done. Punishment should not be about justice. Justice is irrelevant. It's simply revenge dealt by a third party, and what good is that? The question should be "how can we stop these people from doing this again. Punishment should be a preventative measure, not some convoluted bureaucratic revenge scheme. And sometimes, punishment works. And sometimes it doesn't.
Each case should be evaluated individually. There should not be set jail times for each crime. If someone who is usually not violent kills/incapacitated his neighbor for sleeping with his wife and it's unlikely it will happen again, he should be sentenced to therapy, brief(a few years) locked up, and then released with a plethora of restrictions on his life thereafter, and something like annual check-ups.
If a psychopath goes on a rampage and kills 10 people he should be locked up forever. He is beyond hope, and cannot be trusted in the real world.
Here would be the only time I would consider the death penalty. See, if someone Is crazy beyond all hope, and if he where to live at all it would be in a rubber room for his whole life, would not death be a mercy, rather than punishment? A sane person who kills 10 people should be locked up for the rest of his life, so that he may think on his sins. Death for him would be certainly be a relief he by no means deserves.
Dostoyevsky said it well: "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons". They are a microcosm both of the people society deems dangerous and of the humanity and mercy in that society.
I also completely disagree with your view on the role of government. A public school dropping five students so that it might better educate the remaining 25 in a class might benefit society "as a whole" (whatever that means) but is by no means a just way to run a system.
So, let's say an atheist commits murder, so no one judges him? (I am keeping this simple to stay away from a debate about faiths).
And if the government is entitled to do so, it's failing even *more* now (take Boo's point for example), besides, there shouldn't be "a whole", people have to be treated as individuals, not as a mass of tall (otherwise the consideration would have been correct for children j/k) gibberlings with the same array of opinions, ideals, their different ways of thinking, political ideas and considerations and even their personalty.
No, everybody judges him. Judge all you want. What does it matter that he's an atheist, btw? The government doesn't judge, it simply takes measures against it happening again.(jail time, therapy, whatever.). Benefits society as a whole.
Pretty much the only type of crime I can think of where harsher sentencing might effectively deter crime is "white-collar" crime like fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion and insider trading. These are more likely to be carried out systematically by otherwise "respectable" individuals with a lot to gain by breaking the law and a lot to lose if caught.
I'd had a quick read about the Italian justice system and it's pretty radically different from the adversarial systems used in most western nations. No jury, heavy involvement of both prosecutors and defense lawyers in the evidence gathering stages and a number of other differences. I'm not sure you'd have to commit three seperate murders before the authorities decided to lock you up though, @Sergio.
What happens with people who cannot be rehabilitated? Or who are serving life sentences with no chance for parole? Should they have the same luxuries? I wouldn't been feeding them nice food and educating them if they will never get out. . .
I'm still a fan of harsher justice but that's just me. There are far to many people getting of with light sentences for crimes that ruin honest peoples lives.
Long story short, this woman was ARRESTED for child endangerment, now faces investigation by child protective services, and lost the horrible job she was clinging to for survival. In what universe is it unacceptable for a 9 year old child to be unaccompanied at a neighborhood park?? I see 6 or 7 year old kids riding bikes in my neighborhood (gasp) by themselves every single day. I can't remember even having to ask permission to go to the park most summer days when I was that age. Where did the idea that parents can never let their kids get more than 5 feet from their side come from?? Also, need I even mention the fact that the woman who was arrested was, of course, African-American. This arrest would have NEVER taken place if it was a middle-class white mother instead of a poor black one. We are without a doubt one of the stupidest countries on Earth when you consider how we SHOULD act, and how we actually conduct things in our society.
Were you aware that the mother has now also been fired from her job at McDonald's?