Does harsher punishment lead to less crime?

originally posted by: Mianeye
The punishment comes after the crime, seldom criminals actually think of that detail, so it has minimal effect to have higher punishment.

While that may be true, 50% of criminals are repeat offenders. If the punishment was harsh enough, would they continue to break the law repeatedly?

a reply to: DAVID64

I was severly abused by an alcoholic father. In 51 years, I have never murdered anyone, committed a felony of any kind, robbed a store, raped anyone or am in any way a violent person, unless pushed to defend myself or others.
Using the "I was abused" excuse doesn't fly. It is a choice to be a criminal or not. No one forces you to rob a store or rape or be violent.

Like I just explained to Ketsuko, the ones that couldn't rise above the 'upbringing' in their childhood are the ones that make problems for everyone, not the ones who did overcome it, like you. But expecting everyone to rise to your level is a bit narrow minded isn't it?

I think it depends...

I don't think any amount of laws will prevent rape and murder as those are crimes of passion. However, I do think the death penalty prevents recidivism.

Some people are simply not wired to way risk / reward, no matter how severe the punishment. This is why you have so many people who are willing to risk their freedom to sell drugs or do other nefarious crimes. The financial reward outweighs the risk in their mind.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DAVID64

I was severly abused by an alcoholic father. In 51 years, I have never murdered anyone, committed a felony of any kind, robbed a store, raped anyone or am in any way a violent person, unless pushed to defend myself or others.
Using the "I was abused" excuse doesn't fly. It is a choice to be a criminal or not. No one forces you to rob a store or rape or be violent.

Like I just explained to Ketsuko, the ones that couldn't rise above the 'upbringing' in their childhood are the ones that make problems for everyone, not the ones who did overcome it, like you. But expecting everyone to rise to your level is a bit narrow minded isn't it?

Yes, but at some point, the ones who did not rise above their upbringing also need to realize that others did and accept that they do bear some responsibility for not having achieved the same. Clearly, it isn't impossible.

Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to recovering from any problem, and the reason for that is that you can then own it and start to control it no matter what that problem is.

a reply to: ketsuko

Very true. I had a brutal life,and wayy past childhood too-yet i have never hurt a single other person physically because of the anger and resentment i carried with me for many years. Imo that excuse is a cop-out. Just look at all the people who had brutal,miserable childhoods and young adult lives-who refrain from ever taking it out on someone else.

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Mianeye
The punishment comes after the crime, seldom criminals actually think of that detail, so it has minimal effect to have higher punishment.

While that may be true, 50% of criminals are repeat offenders. If the punishment was harsh enough, would they continue to break the law repeatedly?

Repeat as in not getting caught or getting out of prison, continue to rob drugstores.

You could put life sentence on any crime, and there would still be crime, some people actually enjoy doing crimes, it's there way of living, the rule is, it's smart to cheat, stupid to get caught.

As a kid i once stole a piece of candy, i didn't think of the punishment, i thought of the delicious piece of candy.

a reply to: ketsuko

Cannibals raise cannibal children.

Yes, but at some point, the ones who did not rise above their upbringing also need to realize that others did and accept that they do bear some responsibility for not having achieved the same.

If they did they wouldn't be filling prison cells, or grave yards with bodies.

Theres nor reaching the criminal mind with reason. they're criminals. If the crime is serious / heinous enough, they should be put off the world. Executed killers never kill again.

They aren't fixing anything by locking these all up together forever, letting them mingle and become cross trained…

(imo)

a reply to: intrptr

I actually am one of those people who shamelessly DO expect people to rise above their horrible life circumstances and painful past.
Why?
Because i am no stronger,better,smarter or more special than most other people on this rock.In fact i had seriously neverending disadvantages and personal circumstances that made me Weaker than most people,less able to cope with life.
YET i managed. I can honestly and truly say-if *I* can do it,anyone can-if they Want to.

a reply to: intrptr

The cannibal thing is comparing apples to oranges. Cannibal cultures have the practice as an accepted part of life rather than a criminal act and there are often cultural rules as to when and how they engage in it.

I am not arguing with you that sometimes, criminals won't accept their responsibility which is why we remove them from society. I think the Minneapolis example with schools shows that sometimes that's the only possible answer. However, excusing them because "society (or my childhood) made me do it" is also not an answer and it's the one that gets used to justify softening sentences and early release programs all too often.

I don't want to coddle criminals, but our justice system is really screwed up.

The biggest issue I see is that prison for many young criminals is just like getting a graduate degree in crime. While prison should be meant to punish, I believe we need to spend more resources in trying to help rehabilitate some of these people so that they don't resort back to crime upon release.

I have a friend in prison for drug dealing. He is at the lowest level Fed pen you can be in. It is literally like an old folks home. He is due to be released in less than two years. Anyway, he isn't getting any assistance whatsoever in easing the transition back to the real world. He will forever be branded with a Felony conviction. Nothing. I'm sure he will find a job at a warehouse or something, but society makes it almost impossible for these people to transition back into being productive.

Much of our crime problem would be solved if we get drugs out of the picture.

a reply to: deadlyhope

This thread is more about the debate on the topic, not the actual implementation. We have a lot of things to fix in the way of corruption of the elite before we actually tackle such things.

Some example we set, huh? The power elite get away with killing whole nations…

And we are discussing harsher sentences for the abused and neglected individuals that didn't turn out 'right'.

I think you post about how your country handles crime and punishment was exemplary. There has been threads about it here, people cringed at giving prisoners 'rights' and 'treatment', something they have never gotten before in their lives.

Maybe that has a lot to do with why the US is so bullish in the world today. We don't recognize the sovereign rights of other nations, we 'blame them' for not measuring up to our standards… lol

a reply to: ketsuko

The cannibal thing is comparing apples to oranges. Cannibal cultures have the practice as an accepted part of life rather than a criminal act and there are often cultural rules as to when and how they engage in it.

No its not apples and oranges. Crime "Families" live out their lives as criminals only stopping when they are killed or caught. They raise their kids to be criminals, never knowing the difference as they grow up.

Not just the Mob, Drug Lords or gambling , prostitution or other 'rackets'. but whole countries in their nationalistic fervor raise kids to join organizations to attack and kill foreigners in the military, in the highest criminal act of all…. war.

Sorry if I missed any replies, gotta go…

I don't think harsher punishments lead to less crime. I think lack of support systems lead to more crime. I don't even think that harsher sentencing is meant to deter crime. I think sentences are more to serve justice for the people who has harm done against them.

Harsher punishment does not necessarily mean crime rates will go down. People committing crimes know exactly what they are doing and consequences will not stop them. Crime rates will only going down depending on the people's mentality.

a reply to: intrptr

Oh, OK, I get it. All crime is the US's fault because everything is always the US's fault by default.

If the US ceased to exist as a sovereign entity tomorrow, there would be no more crime, no more cannibalism, no more terrorism, no more murder, no more rape, no more bad childhoods, etc.

a reply to: ketsuko

I was addressing why some criminals have their roots in childhood trauma, despite that others think they should be capable to grow out of it. Life sentences don't help in this regard.

Kurt Vonnegut recommends the "hook" for crime...anybody caught criming gets impaled on a huge meat hook and hung in the town square......results virtually NO crime....

It depends on a few factors, mainly: the severity of the crime, the psychological state of the perpetrator and the context of how the crime is to take place.

Making the punishment for serious crimes such as murder or rape harsher would NOT likely result in any significant drop in those crimes. Making the punishment for petty crimes such as littering or jaywalking harsher WOULD likely result in a significant drop in those "crimes". This can be explained by the fact that serious crimes take more effort and malicious intent to pull off, and likely more planning and deception. If somebody is willing to go through so much effort to do the crime, they probably don't care about the time.

The psychological state of the perpetrator matters because if they are indifferent to the consequences of their actions (morally and legally), then they will commit the crime no matter what repercussions await them. If they are put off from committing the crime due to worrying about the fallout, then yes it would deter more criminal activity.

The context is an important consideration as to determine if the crime was committed in cold blood, a crime of passion or out of fear. If committed out of cold blood or out of passion, then the potential punishment will probably not prevent them, whereas if it were a crime of fear, they will likely hesitate knowing the potential consequences.

originally posted by: DAVID64
I was severly abused by an alcoholic father. In 51 years, I have never murdered anyone, committed a felony of any kind, robbed a store, raped anyone or am in any way a violent person, unless pushed to defend myself or others.
Using the "I was abused" excuse doesn't fly. It is a choice to be a criminal or not. No one forces you to rob a store or rape or be violent.

Firstly, sorry to hear about what happened to you.

Most studies that examine abusers show that most of them happened to have been abused themselves. There is of course no causation between those who are abused turning into abusers themselves, but it's still an important aspect of the topic to consider.

I certainly agree with you that the "it happened to me, so me doing it to others is ok" does not fly and everyone is responsible for their own actions.

However, you need to remember that the Nature vs. Nurture debate is far from settled. Many people would not engage in such destructive behaviour had they not experienced it first-hand themselves. That is an unpopular, albeit, factual statement.