How to fix the criminal justice system?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Honestly, I'm not ridiculing you. I'm just trying to point out the fact that there's a huge "population" difference between the US and Europe. Some of what you propose might work. Decriminalizing drugs would be a "good" start, on that we agree. But the Europeans just don't have the levels of "violent" crime we do in the US. We've got to figure out a better way to address the violence issue and I seriously doubt the Europeans have any real experience with that.

a reply to: TonyS

Look. The thing is that OUR prison system doesn't work. It just exacerbates everything to the worst degree. Europe has systems that are working. FYI, Portugal has decriminalized all drugs. So implementing your drug solution would be going along with my idea of following in Europe's stead for ideas.

Another thing to consider. If we can clear the prison rolls from all the non-violent drug convicts and get all the small time offenders to stop repeat offending then we can free up CONSIDERABLE funds to tackle violent crime. Our police forces wouldn't be stretched so thin and we can focus on the crimes that matter.

But the first thing we need to do is drop the idea that punishment is a necessary response to committing a crime.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's the problem with the current justice system. Some people just don't deserve this kind of protection. Waste of space,time,money and ressources. Everything could be better spent to help the people who are genuinely interested to live and work in a civil society. I know my solution is coldhearted but our current system isn't working. The world is already overcrowded and we need to reduce the population in the near future. 2 birds with 1 stone.

Go live in Russia then. In the States there is no such thing as someone not deserving their rights.

I'm german and our criminal justice system is a freaking joke. Rapists are scot free after 2 years. Tax evaders get 10 years. How is that justice?

a reply to: Perfectenemy

I cannot comment on Germany's situation. I've been siting Norway and Portugal's system to try to improve ours. I haven't looked into Germany's cjs.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Honestly, I'm not ridiculing you. I'm just trying to point out the fact that there's a huge "population" difference between the US and Europe. Some of what you propose might work. Decriminalizing drugs would be a "good" start, on that we agree. But the Europeans just don't have the levels of "violent" crime we do in the US. We've got to figure out a better way to address the violence issue and I seriously doubt the Europeans have any real experience with that.

There's an argument to be made there that Europe's prison system results in fewer repeat criminals, which means fewer become career criminals that turn to violence. That their penalties are also lighter also encourages people to be less violent to avoid apprehension.

Outside of street gangs just changing the prison structure could work. To deal with street gangs I think the best thing we can do is to defund them by legalizing drugs. It won't fully eliminate it, but it will shrink them and drastically reduce the problem.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you. This is the kind of thing I'm getting at.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the first thing we need to do is drop the idea that punishment is a necessary response to committing a crime.

Well, the best way to stop ANYTHING in the US is to take the profit motive out of it. If you want to drop punishment, you've first got to end the "For Profit" prison companies.

Now, in terms of handling the CJS from a whole new perspective, I've been toying with and contemplating an entirely different method of "population" management using some of the new and developing technologies that are coming available. First, we'd need to establish a baseline UBI (Universal Basic Income); (we're probably going to need that anyway for other reasons). Second, we already have the technologies to identify and track would be offenders, starting with the Middle School population. Its really possible and no longer too difficult to identify people at a fairly early age who will most likely end up in the CJS. As things stand at the moment, they are just passed along and up the grades and out the school to get rid of them as trouble makers. However, in the not too distant future, we could identify these people, track them with GPS technologies and interdict BEFORE they offend. Predictive Policing is already being practiced in California, although in a rather bass akward method. They use algorithms that predict where crime is likely to occur and dispatch cops to that area. However, if we can successfully identify future offenders BEFORE they offend, we could tie the algorithmic geo-locating data to the "at risk" offender location/movement data so the cops would know BOTH where crimes are NEXT likely to occur and who the likely offender is. With the movement data, we can also predict the "when" a crime is going to be committed. This gives us the "who", the "where" and the "when".

The third component I've been thinking about is the most controversial. It would include creation of a near "caste" system based upon a good or negative "citizen" rating. So, for example, a very high rating would be given to say, a nuclear physicist, based upon intelligence, criminal proclivity (lack thereof), productivity, worthy contribution, etc. People would be differentiated in the caste system with RFID technology and that technology would "talk" to all the other wearers in proximity to one another. In this scenario, those who have very low rating and are most likely to commit a crime would be warned they are in too close proximity to a higher rated member of the caste system. Failure to retreat, or initiating rapid approach with presumably criminal intent would result in a non-lethal but entirely disabling electric shock from the ankle monitor.

Obviously, those at the lowest rating, i.e., those with the highest proclivity to crime would see finding work near impossible. Hence the UBI.

But here's the deal..............no crime..........no punishment!

a reply to: TonyS

The problem with predictive policing is that regardless of all the computer models, someone is still innocent until they actually commit the crime. If they aren't breaking the law, how do the police justify the right to intervene? If we allow that, then we allow them to intervene against anyone at any time, simply because they say so rather than because of events that actually transpired.

a reply to: Aazadan

Did you read the entire post?
The cops don't have to intervene.........the intervention is built into the system, an electrical shock from an ankle monitor. The only reason the cops would need intervene is to revive the "non-compliant".

a reply to: superluminal11

Nothing survives......except Negan....we are all Negan

a reply to: TonyS

But are the levels of violent crime in the USA related to the Brutal conditions in US prisons?

Are petty criminals going in prison and comeing out violent?

To add to that argument UK violent crime sit between the USA and Europe and our criminal justice system is more similar to the USA.

a reply to: TonyS

That seems very draconian. Putting ankle monitors on innocent people just so you can shock them into compliance at will.

a reply to: crazyewok

What if there were no personal lawyers nor any jury of peers, but instead, everyone were tried by a jury (of 6 defense attorneys and 6 prosecuting attorneys) who had to agree on a recommended sentence that a judge and his two advisers (one adviser schooled in psychology and the other in ethics) would deliberate on and either overrule, carry out, or pass on to another court. (And each court and jury role was rotated regularly.)

Basically, it would attempt to remove deceit from the courts.


Edit: The two advisers should be specialists in whatever the background of the defendant is. If the defendant were a child then a specialist in child psychology would be used and if the defendant were Mormon then a specialist in Mormon ethics would be used.

a reply to: TonyS

I like your idea, but instead of prejudging someone for crimes they haven't committed, I'd be more open to trying to reach out to them and find out what is causing them to lash out and misbehave. Most times it is due to problems at home. Broken home. Abusive parents. Neglectful parents. No parents. Mental illness. Bullied. Live in a bad neighborhood. Etc.

When these people are still kids, it isn't their fault yet for their actions. They are just acting out because of their environment. We shouldn't be holding the luck of their birth against them. A kid can't help being born in a broken home, but if we let their problems cement into their heads, acting out becomes career criminal.

If we can get these kids proper counseling, a loving home, better understand mental illness, etc it would go a long way to decreasing the crime rates. THAT'S the kind of predictive policing I'd like to see.

Unfortunately in reality, children are merely just political footballs to push partisan agendas and rarely are their REAL needs taken into consideration in political discussions.

PS: I agree with getting rid of the private prisons. Eff them things.