Justice System Fails

[fakeitormakeit2]

I believe a Nebraska senator sued God in order to have the court rule for an injunction ordering God to stop harmful behavior which parallels to terrorist activity (natural disasters). I don't know the ruling, but even the hearing of such a case is a failure of the court system.

 

And to the comment that rehabilitation is not justice is incorrect. It is justice to society if the criminal made amends to the victim and resumed a productive post in society. Decreasing society's access to even one productive member is an injustice to all of society, therefore doing the opposite is a justice. A crime is not only committed against a victim but society because it breaks contract with society, therefore all of society is wronged.

[The Dark Lord]

The whole legal system in the UK is a fail.

 

Basically imo, the enforcement of Human rights in life is holding back civilization. I personally believe criminals null their human rights when they commit a crime and should not have as much as they do. Giving people the short sentences that they currently get is no deterrent for criminals.

 

The Death Penalty should be enforced more often, and punishments should fit the crime. I have never understood how a life sentence is "justice" when a person kills somebody. Paying for thousands of murderers to live in a prison for the remainder of their lives is just costing the citizens money that could otherwise be spent into infrastructure upkeep or be used for funding something else.

 

One of the problems that I have with society is that it pampers people too much. People just aren't afraid of any consequences from doing things that are wrong. When the police use force against a criminal who tries to fight back, activists scream "Police brutality!" It's just ridiculous. I'm ashamed of how soft society has become.

[Rien]

[hide=Previous Conversation]

My grandpa had built an amazing house in Montauk. When he died, his girlfriend, who was basically just with him for the money, tried to claim that they were married, and that the house, the business, and all his money, be given to her. My dad and uncles were not happy, and they took her on a nine year court case.

 

Her argument was based on a stupid Georgia law that said that if a couple stay in a hotel room together, they're married. Though my family eventually won the case, they had decided that that wasn't enough. They wanted to ruin her life for what she did. They ended up counter-sueing, and while I haven't heard the exact details, she had to pay for the entire case, including lawyers. She has never been able to live comfortably since then.

 

Anyways, they told me that if she won the case, they planned to burn the house to the ground.

 

If that's true, then I'm worried for your family. :unsure:

 

Certainly, she was in the wrong for what she was trying to do, but your family's actions were a bit... extreme, to say the least. :blink:

 

 

Why is that extreme? If she succeded in taking the business, we lose our biggest asset. She tried to ruin us, and she got bit in the [wagon] for it.

 

Like I said, I agree that she was in the wrong. However, planning to burn down the house if you had lost the case? Viciously trying to ruin her after you won? I would definitely call that extreme. :mellow:

 

I'd even go so far as to say that it's childish ("If I can't have it, then nobody can!"), to be honest. Revenge and petty hate don't solve anything.

 

Nonononono, we won, so we didn't burn it down.

 

But the point is that she was ONLY with the guy so that she could take it. She didn't deserve the business/house/cash, and legally it wasn't hers, so why should she have it? She was a bad person, and she wasn't going to get rich because of a lie she told everyone. It wasn't. "if we cant have it nobody can", it was "the dishonest [bleep] sure as hell isn't getting it".

[/hide]

 

Nonononono, we won, so we didn't burn it down.

 

So everything's "OK" because you won the case and didn't have to set fire to the house? Honestly, that fact that you were considering doing such a thing out of spite doesn't strike you as a bit psychotic?

 

But the point is that she was ONLY with the guy so that she could take it. She didn't deserve the business/house/cash, and legally it wasn't hers, so why should she have it? She was a bad person, and she wasn't going to get rich because of a lie she told everyone.

 

Yes, I'm entirely sure she was a wicked, evil person who deserves all the punishment you can possibly wreck upon her. I'm not in any position to judge (hell, I don't know her in the least), but I can definitely say that the world isn't so black and white. Perhaps she had wronged your family, but as another human being (and one without any support, apparently), she deserves some token respect, at least. I'm sure there's more to the story than you've presented, but even if there's not, no one should be treated with such hostility. To be honest, the animosity you're exuding is fairly leaping off the page at me; everything about your original post practically screams "EXTREME".

 

It wasn't. "if we cant have it nobody can", it was "the dishonest [bleep] sure as hell isn't getting it".

 

How is that not the same thing? Either way, you had no intention of giving it up from the start, even if you had to resort to arson (illegal and generally linked to psychopathy, fyi) in the end. Look, I can appreciate that such a long trial must have been taxing; undoubtably, it must have been a very trying time for you all. However, is winning simply not enough? It seems to me that your family wanted not only to win, but to also ensure that the woman lost terribly. Is it truly necessary to kick the loser while they're down? Sure, it probably cost your family quite a bit to fund the fight in court, but she had to bear the same burden (albeit alone, mind you, and without the benefit of winning at the conclusion). You won and she lost, so can you not just let the issue go at that?

 

Simply because you won and found yourself in a position of power, does not mean that you're "right" or "just" in stomping someone weaker than you (the loser) into the dust. To pull a somewhat cliche example from history, the Treaty of Versailles, which ended WW1, levied on the German people an impossible burden; it was far too extreme in demanding reparations (the British and French thought to take their revenge through it), and so ultimately became the kindling for WW11. Such oppression, such petty revenge, can only lead to more and more problems.

 

To be perfectly honest, from what I've read of the situation, your family has caused far more injury than the woman ever could have. That's not to say that she was in the right, but you certainly did nothing to stay your hand after getting "even"; I sympathize with her far more than I do your family. And by the way, "she started it" is not a legitimate excuse for going as far as you did in ruining her (just in case you were thinking of saying so).

 

 

*EDIT* I realize this has all been off-topic, so I'll stop here if you truly can't see how your actions were extreme and unjust. I find it disturbing how far your family's willing to go for the sake of revenge (in addition to demonizing the woman whose life you've now wrecked), but we've gone too far off track here.

[Dizzle229]

First of all, no, she did not suffer at all fromgoing with the case, she stood to lose NOTHING had my family not counter sued. Her lawyer was her boyfriend (yes, she ALREADY had another boyfriend), who took the case for free.

 

The Treaty of Versailles punished not only German leaders, but the citizens of Germany that had done nothing wrong. There are no innocent people being damaged by the counter suit, so it's not really the same at all.

 

How is it far more damage? It was everything or nothing on both sides. She was poor before not because she was unfortunate, but because, and I'm quoting her here, "I'm too gorgeous to work.", and was living off of his money, which came from the business. That doesn't even sound like something someone says without sarcasm. The way we have it set up, the money from the business is divided between the five brothers, and because of it, we each make a comfortable living, not too rich, not too poor. If she gets it, she becomes filthy stinkin' rich, and our entire family goes broke. She knew this, and she was more than willing to go on. At one point, they even offered to make her the sixth share, and she refused. They gave her a chance to bail out, and she didn't.

 

Anyway, if we didn't wreck her life, then the lives of everyone in the five brothers familys get wrecked, probably 13-20 people. And to be honest, I don't think any of us have any sympathy for what happened to her. Like I said, she was well aware of the damage she came so close to causing.

 

As for burning the house/business down, I'm sure glad it didn't come to that, because if she won we wouldn't have a nice place to visit during the summer. But the idea behind the option was that if we were going to be poor, at least a lying greedy [bleep] (who ended up trying the SAME GODDAM THING with her lawyer boyfriend) would have nothing to gain from it.

 

Now her only escape from her misery is to freeze to death in a New York City alleyway, and I can tell you that on that day, there will be free drinks all around at the Montauk house.

 

Anyway, I do appreciate you trying to understand my point of view, whether you agree with me or not.

[Atom Smash40]

if it weren't for the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the constitution, I'm sure the US would hang murders like they did 'back in the day'. I agree that society has become too soft. you know, as much as the thought sickens me, the world needs some form of those JigSaw traps as punishment to criminals. Saw's message (though he may be a fictional character) makes sense; if you throw away your life by doing bad things, you don't deserve to live. if you repent by sacrificing the part of you that you did those bad things with, you can live life in a new light. the US should have some form of serious punishment like that. maybe not as grotesque but as severe. like a post above, once you commit a crime (and not just a misdemanor), you should lose all your rights since you've violated them. hell, I wouldn't mind going Gerard butler on some poor bastard who killed my family, and in the process exploiting every loophole in the system. those monsters don't deserve to live (even with a life sentence). or, if they do get a life sentence, they should live it out in a living hell, meaning measly amounts of grub, thinnest blankets imaginable, 50 thread bedsheets, just the boxsprings to sleep on, and a toilet in the cell that flushes once a week lol

[Bloodstain]

if it weren't for the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the constitution, I'm sure the US would hang murders like they did 'back in the day'. I agree that society has become too soft. you know, as much as the thought sickens me, the world needs some form of those JigSaw traps as punishment to criminals. Saw's message (though he may be a fictional character) makes sense; if you throw away your life by doing bad things, you don't deserve to live. if you repent by sacrificing the part of you that you did those bad things with, you can live life in a new light. the US should have some form of serious punishment like that. maybe not as grotesque but as severe. like a post above, once you commit a crime (and not just a misdemanor), you should lose all your rights since you've violated them. hell, I wouldn't mind going Gerard butler on some poor bastard who killed my family, and in the process exploiting every loophole in the system. those monsters don't deserve to live (even with a life sentence). or, if they do get a life sentence, they should live it out in a living hell, meaning measly amounts of grub, thinnest blankets imaginable, 50 thread bedsheets, just the boxsprings to sleep on, and a toilet in the cell that flushes once a week lol

 

I love how you're gungho about punishing and murdering murderers, yet have you ever thought to look at the causes of crime and ways that we can fix them?

[Giordano]

And to the comment that rehabilitation is not justice is incorrect. It is justice to society if the criminal made amends to the victim and resumed a productive post in society. Decreasing society's access to even one productive member is an injustice to all of society, therefore doing the opposite is a justice. A crime is not only committed against a victim but society because it breaks contract with society, therefore all of society is wronged.

If somebody raped my sister I don't ever think he'll give enough amends for me. The crime was made against my sister, not society. The quarrel is between my sister and the son of a [bleep]; naturally, my family will follow suit as well.

 

And that proves my point: to you, the criminal wronged society. Why should we accept him back?

 

 

 

Nonononono, we won, so we didn't burn it down.

 

So everything's "OK" because you won the case and didn't have to set fire to the house? Honestly, that fact that you were considering doing such a thing out of spite doesn't strike you as a bit psychotic?

Uh, no? Why must every action we do have to be linked with some [cabbage] pychilogical condition? To remove something from the face of this earth, you destroy it. Are you lacking the Logic Sydrome?

 

But the point is that she was ONLY with the guy so that she could take it. She didn't deserve the business/house/cash, and legally it wasn't hers, so why should she have it? She was a bad person, and she wasn't going to get rich because of a lie she told everyone.

 

Yes, I'm entirely sure she was a wicked, evil person who deserves all the punishment you can possibly wreck upon her. I'm not in any position to judge (hell, I don't know her in the least), but I can definitely say that the world isn't so black and white. Perhaps she had wronged your family, but as another human being (and one without any support, apparently), she deserves some token respect, at least. I'm sure there's more to the story than you've presented, but even if there's not, no one should be treated with such hostility. To be honest, the animosity you're exuding is fairly leaping off the page at me; everything about your original post practically screams "EXTREME"

Too bad: in cases like these where life depencies are involved it IS black in white. At the threat of losing your income (which you need to survive) I don't think people would stop and think about the moral rightness/wrongness and the grayness of the situation. The [bleep] was threatening their assests in the most unfair way possible. Go all out.

 

It wasn't. "if we cant have it nobody can", it was "the dishonest [bleep] sure as hell isn't getting it".

 

How is that not the same thing? Either way, you had no intention of giving it up from the start, even if you had to resort to arson (illegal and generally linked to psychopathy, fyi) Logic sydrome again? God damnit.)in the end. Look, I can appreciate that such a long trial must have been taxing; undoubtably, it must have been a very trying time for you all. However, is winning simply not enough? It seems to me that your family wanted not only to win, but to also ensure that the woman lost terribly. Is it truly necessary to kick the loser while they're down? Sure, it probably cost your family quite a bit to fund the fight in court, but she had to bear the same burden (albeit alone, mind you, and without the benefit of winning at the conclusion). You won and she lost, so can you not just let the issue go at that?

Welcome to justice. No matter how much amends she can give, it won't be enough for family. So, punishment must rise until it meets.

 

Simply because you won and found yourself in a position of power, does not mean that you're "right" or "just" in stomping someone weaker than you (the loser) into the dust. To pull a somewhat cliche example from history, the Treaty of Versailles, which ended WW1, levied on the German people an impossible burden; it was far too extreme in demanding reparations (the British and French thought to take their revenge through it), and so ultimately became the kindling for WW11. Such oppression, such petty revenge, can only lead to more and more problems.

It might lead to problems later, yes. But you [bleep]ing fought for what you had and sometimes you have to defend it later in life.

 

To be perfectly honest, from what I've read of the situation, your family has caused far more injury than the woman ever could have. That's not to say that she was in the right, but you certainly did nothing to stay your hand after getting "even"; I sympathize with her far more than I do your family. And by the way, "she started it" is not a legitimate excuse for going as far as you did in ruining her (just in case you were thinking of saying so).".

"than that woman ever could have" ?

Were you NOT reading the situation? She was about to gain the assets of 5 familes because she [bleep]ed a old man. To the contrary, SHE would of caused the most damage. Serves her right for what happened.

 

 

*EDIT* I realize this has all been off-topic, so I'll stop here if you truly can't see how your actions were extreme and unjust. I find it disturbing how far your family's willing to go for the sake of justice(in addition to demonizing the woman whose life you've now wrecked), but we've gone too far off track here.

Why is pursuing justice such a bad thing? Thought it was one of the US Consitution's prime duties...

[Bloodstain]

 

Welcome to justice. No matter how much amends she can give, it won't be enough for family. So, punishment must rise until it meets.

 

 

I assume you have never heard of restorative justice.

[Zierro]

They still discourage it, which should be obligatory. By merely slapping their wrists, it's almost like encouraging it. That's like saying, "It's stupid to tell kids to wear condoms, because they won't anyways." That doesn't mean that you shouldn't discourage unsafe sex.

 

Also, saying it isn't a deterrent at all is quite a bold and convenient claim. How do you know this? You know that there has never been a person who thought, "Damn, I want to do this crime but I don't want to get punished for it so I won't."?

 

Do some looking, it's a common sentiment/research finding in the CJ field.

 

I'm aware that "states with death penalties don't have a smaller crime rate", but that doesn't prove anything. This is definitely a case where correlation doesn't imply causation. I mean, it's simple logic to know that people (and even animals) are more likely to do something if they benefit from it and less likely to do something if it harms them. Yes, of course there are some people out there who are not swayed by whatever punishments may be out there, but it's such a huge stretch to believe that never once did somebody change their mind about committing a crime because they feared the law.

 

Do you really think if we just stopped putting people in jail and fining them the crime rate wouldn't get any higher?

 

The problem with this train of thought is that it tends towards acting vengfully and not in a just a manner.

 

The real problem I have is with people wanting to criminals to be given sentences that are totally disproportionate.

 

It doesn't have to be that way. I simply think there are cases where people get off too lightly. I also believe there are cases where people get way too harsh of a punishment for petty crimes though. I don't think punishments should be disproportionate.

[pegpenguin]

I tried reading all these arguments, and about halfway through the first one I remembered what the actual threads about and how pointless all this debate is >.>

 

And justice, if properly handled is in no way relate-able to revenge. This to me sounds like an argument I'd hear in some story where the bad guy thinks to win some sympathy points or make the hero of the story think twice about what he thought was right.

[Riku3220]

And to the comment that rehabilitation is not justice is incorrect. It is justice to society if the criminal made amends to the victim and resumed a productive post in society. Decreasing society's access to even one productive member is an injustice to all of society, therefore doing the opposite is a justice. A crime is not only committed against a victim but society because it breaks contract with society, therefore all of society is wronged.

If somebody raped my sister I don't ever think he'll give enough amends for me. The crime was made against my sister, not society. The quarrel is between my sister and the son of a [bleep]; naturally, my family will follow suit as well.

 

And that proves my point: to you, the criminal wronged society. Why should we accept him back?

I can say that beating the guy to death won't take away the fact that he raped your sister any more than putting him jail will. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

 

 

Nonononono, we won, so we didn't burn it down.

 

So everything's "OK" because you won the case and didn't have to set fire to the house? Honestly, that fact that you were considering doing such a thing out of spite doesn't strike you as a bit psychotic?

Uh, no? Why must every action we do have to be linked with some [cabbage] pychilogical condition? To remove something from the face of this earth, you destroy it. Are you lacking the Logic Sydrome?

Because everything we do is psychological.

But the point is that she was ONLY with the guy so that she could take it. She didn't deserve the business/house/cash, and legally it wasn't hers, so why should she have it? She was a bad person, and she wasn't going to get rich because of a lie she told everyone.

 

Yes, I'm entirely sure she was a wicked, evil person who deserves all the punishment you can possibly wreck upon her. I'm not in any position to judge (hell, I don't know her in the least), but I can definitely say that the world isn't so black and white. Perhaps she had wronged your family, but as another human being (and one without any support, apparently), she deserves some token respect, at least. I'm sure there's more to the story than you've presented, but even if there's not, no one should be treated with such hostility. To be honest, the animosity you're exuding is fairly leaping off the page at me; everything about your original post practically screams "EXTREME"

Too bad: in cases like these where life depencies are involved it IS black in white. At the threat of losing your income (which you need to survive) I don't think people would stop and think about the moral rightness/wrongness and the grayness of the situation. The [bleep] was threatening their assests in the most unfair way possible. Go all out.

They saved their assets. They didn't need to ruin hers.

It wasn't. "if we cant have it nobody can", it was "the dishonest [bleep] sure as hell isn't getting it".

 

How is that not the same thing? Either way, you had no intention of giving it up from the start, even if you had to resort to arson (illegal and generally linked to psychopathy, fyi) Logic sydrome again? God damnit.)in the end. Look, I can appreciate that such a long trial must have been taxing; undoubtably, it must have been a very trying time for you all. However, is winning simply not enough? It seems to me that your family wanted not only to win, but to also ensure that the woman lost terribly. Is it truly necessary to kick the loser while they're down? Sure, it probably cost your family quite a bit to fund the fight in court, but she had to bear the same burden (albeit alone, mind you, and without the benefit of winning at the conclusion). You won and she lost, so can you not just let the issue go at that?

Welcome to justice. No matter how much amends she can give, it won't be enough for family. So, punishment must rise until it meets.

Really? If that were true then we'd all be at the mercy of whoever for whatever reason. I could beat a guy to death for stealing my pencil because burning his family alive in their home "wasn't enough for me".

Simply because you won and found yourself in a position of power, does not mean that you're "right" or "just" in stomping someone weaker than you (the loser) into the dust. To pull a somewhat cliche example from history, the Treaty of Versailles, which ended WW1, levied on the German people an impossible burden; it was far too extreme in demanding reparations (the British and French thought to take their revenge through it), and so ultimately became the kindling for WW11. Such oppression, such petty revenge, can only lead to more and more problems.

It might lead to problems later, yes. But you [bleep]ing fought for what you had and sometimes you have to defend it later in life.

I'm really not seeing what you mean by this...

To be perfectly honest, from what I've read of the situation, your family has caused far more injury than the woman ever could have. That's not to say that she was in the right, but you certainly did nothing to stay your hand after getting "even"; I sympathize with her far more than I do your family. And by the way, "she started it" is not a legitimate excuse for going as far as you did in ruining her (just in case you were thinking of saying so).".

"than that woman ever could have" ?

Were you NOT reading the situation? She was about to gain the assets of 5 familes because she [bleep]ed a old man. To the contrary, SHE would of caused the most damage. Serves her right for what happened.

That old man was probably considering marrying her anyways. If anything they should be angry at Dizzle's grandfather for allowing the girl into his life at all.

 

*EDIT* I realize this has all been off-topic, so I'll stop here if you truly can't see how your actions were extreme and unjust. I find it disturbing how far your family's willing to go for the sake of justice(in addition to demonizing the woman whose life you've now wrecked), but we've gone too far off track here.

Why is pursuing justice such a bad thing? Thought it was one of the US Consitution's prime duties...

Justice isn't a bad thing. What you want is extreme revenge. If the punishment "isn't enough" then you believe it's fine to jack up the penalty even more than what it needs to be. The lady not getting the house and business was the justice. Destroying her financially was overkill.

[Bloodstain]

They still discourage it, which should be obligatory. By merely slapping their wrists, it's almost like encouraging it. That's like saying, "It's stupid to tell kids to wear condoms, because they won't anyways." That doesn't mean that you shouldn't discourage unsafe sex.

 

Also, saying it isn't a deterrent at all is quite a bold and convenient claim. How do you know this? You know that there has never been a person who thought, "Damn, I want to do this crime but I don't want to get punished for it so I won't."?

 

Do some looking, it's a common sentiment/research finding in the CJ field.

 

I'm aware that "states with death penalties don't have a smaller crime rate", but that doesn't prove anything. This is definitely a case where correlation doesn't imply causation. I mean, it's simple logic to know that people (and even animals) are more likely to do something if they benefit from it and less likely to do something if it harms them. Yes, of course there are some people out there who are not swayed by whatever punishments may be out there, but it's such a huge stretch to believe that never once did somebody change their mind about committing a crime because they feared the law.

 

 

I'm not talking about just crime rates, I'm talking as a specific deterrent too, and I never said that it is confined to the death penalty state stats. Criminals do not think they will be caught

[Zierro]

My apologies then. It's a common argument I've seen for the deterrent thing, so I assumed that's what you were speaking about. Still though, thinking that laws don't affect people's behavior is just about as big a stretch as they come. There may have been criminals who didn't think they would get caught, but there's also been people who did not partake in crimes because they were afraid of getting caught. Surely we don't have to debate over this simple fact, do we?

[Rien]

I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved any further, but I suppose there's no helping it.

I'll leave one last post on the matter, since apparently I lack self-control, heh. :lol:

 

Dizzle, I sincerely hope that neither you nor any members of your family who feel the same way EVER come into any sort of authoritative power. It's blatantly obvious that all of you lack compassion for your fellow man and have a sadistic streak running through your family. I sincerely wish this was a gross exaggeration on my part, but after seeing several of your quotes, I have to wonder.

 

Now her only escape from her misery is to freeze to death in a New York City alleyway, and I can tell you that on that day, there will be free drinks all around at the Montauk house.

 

...really? If you honestly can't see what's wrong with that statement, then there's nothing more that I can say; there's no use addressing the rest of your post if you truly feel this way.

 

It's ridiculous that I have to try to explain this at all. :?

 

-------------------------------

 

 

Nick_6464, if you want to troll/insult me, then please do so properly. I'm sure you can do much better than saying that I lack this "Logic Sydrome" of yours. As for the rest of your post, please refer to Riku3220's post; he's given answers similarly to those I would write, and in far fewer words. :thumbup:

 

I'll leave on the note that you seem to equate justice with escalating retribution, and I can only hope that you change your mind on this one day, for the sake of everyone you come in contact with. :unsure:

[Bloodstain]

My apologies then. It's a common argument I've seen for the deterrent thing, so I assumed that's what you were speaking about. Still though, thinking that laws don't affect people's behavior is just about as big a stretch as they come. There may have been criminals who didn't think they would get caught, but there's also been people who did not partake in crimes because they were afraid of getting caught. Surely we don't have to debate over this simple fact, do we?

 

I still wouldn't say it's an effective deterrent. You and I don't murder or steal cars or rape people because we will go to jail, we don't do it because we have morals, education, good upbringings, etc. And this is ignoring the problem of attributing causes to lower crime rates.

 

And for the sake of argument, let's say that it was a good deterrent, but a question then would be: is it the prison that is deterring, or is it the thought of being caught and punished? In which case, there would be better, cheaper, and more effective ways of dealing with crime other than prison.

[Zierro]

You and I don't murder or steal cars or rape people because we will go to jail, we don't do it because we have morals, education, good upbringings, etc. And this is ignoring the problem of attributing causes to lower crime rates.

 

Yes, but unfortunately some members of society need something more than morals, education, good upbringings, etc. to prevent them from doing wrong. For example, you can try to teach a whole class about why stealing is wrong, but the students' opinions of the matter will still differentiate, and thus their morals will too.

 

As primal as the idea of a scare tactic sounds, I believe it's an efficient (and reasonable) way of maintaining some order in society when all else has failed. And let's not forget: It's all for a good cause - not a bad one. It's for the purpose of protecting the lives of the innocent - not an excuse to make people suffer. I'd love it if we never had to resort to punishments. I'd love it if people just didn't feel the need to attack the innocent. But sadly that's not the world we live in.

 

And for the sake of argument, let's say that it was a good deterrent, but a question then would be: is it the prison that is deterring, or is it the thought of being caught and punished? In which case, there would be better, cheaper, and more effective ways of dealing with crime other than prison.

 

There could be. I'm completely open to bigger and better methods of accomplishing things, but I just haven't heard of anything of the sort yet.

 

I still wouldn't say it's an effective deterrent.

 

What is? A minor deterrent is still better than no deterrent. Like I said above, I'm open to new ideas but jail is all we have right now.

[Serpent Eye]

Well, this isn't something that deals strictly with the justice system, but it's somewhat related, and quite stupid in my opinion.

 

Recently, one of my employees at work had someone break into her and her boyfriend's house and steal quite a lot of their belongings -- all DVDs, CDs, games, and their gaming consoles. Several days after the incident, she was browsing around at Sam Goody (a music/movie retail store in our local mall) and noticed one or two DVDs/CDs that seemed "familiar" (a corner of the DVD jacket was scratched in a way that was familiar, scuff marks on the cases, etc.) This occurred several times over the next few days, so she finally brought it up to a manager at the retail store.

 

Turns out, the burglar had SOLD all of the stolen goods to the retail store as used copies. The terrible part? The owners of the store would NOT give her her belongings back, and could NOT disclose the name of the person who had brought them all in.

 

The most they could do for her was the set all of the items aside so no one else could by them -- she is now having to buy the items back from the store though they were hers originally...

 

<_<

[Bloodstain]

You and I don't murder or steal cars or rape people because we will go to jail, we don't do it because we have morals, education, good upbringings, etc. And this is ignoring the problem of attributing causes to lower crime rates.

 

Yes, but unfortunately some members of society need something more than morals, education, good upbringings, etc. to prevent them from doing wrong. For example, you can try to teach a whole class about why stealing is wrong, but the students' opinions of the matter will still differentiate, and thus their morals will too.

 

As primal as the idea of a scare tactic sounds, I believe it's an efficient (and reasonable) way of maintaining some order in society when all else has failed. And let's not forget: It's all for a good cause - not a bad one. It's for the purpose of protecting the lives of the innocent - not an excuse to make people suffer. I'd love it if we never had to resort to punishments. I'd love it if people just didn't feel the need to attack the innocent. But sadly that's not the world we live in.

 

And for the sake of argument, let's say that it was a good deterrent, but a question then would be: is it the prison that is deterring, or is it the thought of being caught and punished? In which case, there would be better, cheaper, and more effective ways of dealing with crime other than prison.

 

There could be. I'm completely open to bigger and better methods of accomplishing things, but I just haven't heard of anything of the sort yet.

 

I still wouldn't say it's an effective deterrent.

 

What is? A minor deterrent is still better than no deterrent. Like I said above, I'm open to new ideas but jail is all we have right now.

We're talking about mostly adults and prison, not hypothetical school kids

 

As for prison being an effective deterrent, to my knowledge no study has ever found that. Hell, how can you call it effective when people who have actually been to prison and experienced it have (iirc) a >50% recidivism rate in USA?

 

As for other ways to deal with crime, look up restorative justice. When I started my criminal justice degree program, I thought the idea was ridiculous, but after taking restorative justice/conflict resolution classes, I wish that the government would implement them a lot more. One case that stood out to me was one about a rapist. This guy raped two women, both who had really really bad trauma because of it. While he assaulted one of the women, she looked at the clock and saw the time, and she accidentally turned on the radio. Ever since then, she hasn't been able to listen to music at all without freaking out, and she couldn't sleep at night until it was past that time she saw on the clock. The other woman I can't remember. They both agreed to meet with him, and he agreed to meet with them. They ended coming out of it extremely pleased with the process, and the first woman listened to music on the way home and was fine.

 

There are lots of cases like that, and I think that everyone could benefit from restorative justice if it was used more. That + spending money on causes of crime and other methods would be a lot better than what we have now I think. And I don't think we'll ever be able to deter crime, but we could be more proactive about it

[Zierro]

We're talking about mostly adults and prison, not hypothetical school kids

 

And I'm talking about hypothetical school kids because it was a hypothetical example. What's wrong with that? Change the word "students" with "adults" and the point would still stand.

 

As for prison being an effective deterrent, to my knowledge no study has ever found that.

 

That's probably because it's impossible to measure how many people there have been who thought to themselves, "I'm not going to do this because I'm afraid of going to jail." Unless they all openly admit it to the public, it's impossible to know the statistics behind that.

 

Just the idea of it alone is enough proof to say it works though. Consequences dictate our course of actions on a daily basis. When you teach a baby right from wrong, usually the parent uses a mild but effective punishment such as a slap on the hand - and it eventually works. The baby does not like getting slapped when it touches electrical wires, so it ceases the action that leads to the uncomfortable feeling. Also, I'm pretty sure if you saw somebody walk into an electrical fence and get shocked, you would avoid that area. This is just how human beings, and even animals, generally function. Obviously not everyone's minds are going to be that simple. But like I said before, just the fact that we're discouraging crimes by not rewarding them should be obligatory, even if it does not deter every single criminal out there - it can set an example for other criminals. Punishment is an incentive to not commit crime, and whether the criminal uses that incentive or not, it does not change the fact that it's still an incentive to not commit crime.

 

Hell, how can you call it effective when people who have actually been to prison and experienced it have (iirc) a >50% recidivism rate in USA?

 

They are the people who have not been deterred, either because the punishment was too light or they are just too strong-willed of criminals. This isn't an accurate means of showing us whether jail deters crime or not, because it's ignoring the fact that there are people who have never went to jail because they are too afraid to commit crimes. For all you know, there might be millions of people out there who would've committed crimes if jail didn't seem like such an unpleasant experience to them. Just because there's no way to find out that number doesn't automatically make it 0, which seems to be what you're implying.

 

Also, this is irrelevant to the deterrent argument, but if the people who are already in jail are more likely to commit crimes whenever they get the opportunity, that's showing us that it's probably a good idea to keep them away from the rest of society. Jail has other purposes other than deterring.

 

As for other ways to deal with crime, look up restorative justice. When I started my criminal justice degree program, I thought the idea was ridiculous, but after taking restorative justice/conflict resolution classes, I wish that the government would implement them a lot more. One case that stood out to me was one about a rapist. This guy raped two women, both who had really really bad trauma because of it. While he assaulted one of the women, she looked at the clock and saw the time, and she accidentally turned on the radio. Ever since then, she hasn't been able to listen to music at all without freaking out, and she couldn't sleep at night until it was past that time she saw on the clock. The other woman I can't remember. They both agreed to meet with him, and he agreed to meet with them. They ended coming out of it extremely pleased with the process, and the first woman listened to music on the way home and was fine.

 

Wait a second. Are you saying restorative justice is a better alternative than jail altogether? Instead of sending rapists to years of prison, they should just have to apologize to the women and then go on about their day, probably raping other women in the near future? Justice isn't limited to only giving the victims peace of mind. A big part of it is to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place, whereas restorative justice is only after the damage has been done. Criminals would have absolutely nothing to fear. Perhaps a mixture of restorative justice and prison would be okay, but having it as the only method of justice just seems ridiculous. What would their incentive to not commit a crime be then?

 

You give criminals the benefit of the doubt far too much.

 

And I don't think we'll ever be able to deter crime, but we could be more proactive about it

 

I'm pretty sure it's possible to convince some people not to commit crimes, but just because it doesn't work for every single criminal does not mean the system is a failure.

[Kiriyama]

Well, this isn't something that deals strictly with the justice system, but it's somewhat related, and quite stupid in my opinion.

 

Recently, one of my employees at work had someone break into her and her boyfriend's house and steal quite a lot of their belongings -- all DVDs, CDs, games, and their gaming consoles. Several days after the incident, she was browsing around at Sam Goody (a music/movie retail store in our local mall) and noticed one or two DVDs/CDs that seemed "familiar" (a corner of the DVD jacket was scratched in a way that was familiar, scuff marks on the cases, etc.) This occurred several times over the next few days, so she finally brought it up to a manager at the retail store.

 

Turns out, the burglar had SOLD all of the stolen goods to the retail store as used copies. The terrible part? The owners of the store would NOT give her her belongings back, and could NOT disclose the name of the person who had brought them all in.

 

The most they could do for her was the set all of the items aside so no one else could by them -- she is now having to buy the items back from the store though they were hers originally...

 

<_<

 

Can't they get the law involved?

 

Because it seems a bit..Strange that they are knowingly dealing in stolen goods, and furthermore, protecting this person who committed the crime from being caught.

[Madmanpur3]

In regards to Zierro's and Bloodstain's little debate, I'll just say that if I knew I could get away with say stealing a car from a large dealership and never have to worry about getting caught, then I most definitely would....many people would. Also, people don't speed (too much) while driving because of the threat of having to fork out a hundred dollars for a ticket, not because they feel endangered by speeding.

 

My biggest issue with the justice system as it is, is the whole idea of precedent. If two people commit the same crime* they punish them the same, regardless of anything else....and to me that's complete [cabbage].

 

*By same crime, I mean the same on paper, not in reality.

[obfuscator]

I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved any further, but I suppose there's no helping it.

I'll leave one last post on the matter, since apparently I lack self-control, heh. :lol:

 

Dizzle, I sincerely hope that neither you nor any members of your family who feel the same way EVER come into any sort of authoritative power. It's blatantly obvious that all of you lack compassion for your fellow man and have a sadistic streak running through your family. I sincerely wish this was a gross exaggeration on my part, but after seeing several of your quotes, I have to wonder.

 

Now her only escape from her misery is to freeze to death in a New York City alleyway, and I can tell you that on that day, there will be free drinks all around at the Montauk house.

 

...really? If you honestly can't see what's wrong with that statement, then there's nothing more that I can say; there's no use addressing the rest of your post if you truly feel this way.

 

It's ridiculous that I have to try to explain this at all. :?

 

I agree completely - this sort of "she started it" attititude is ridiculous and frankly immature. I support 100% the protection of your assets, because, yes, it did seem like this woman was taking advantage of the situation, but, I'm sorry - wishing that kind of misfortune upon another human being is absolutely uncalled for.

 

It seems to me that someone should be angry at the incredible naivety shown by your grandfather in becoming involved with a woman of this sort.

[Bloodstain]

 

Wait a second. Are you saying restorative justice is a better alternative than jail altogether? Instead of sending rapists to years of prison, they should just have to apologize to the women and then go on about their day, probably raping other women in the near future? Justice isn't limited to only giving the victims peace of mind. A big part of it is to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place, whereas restorative justice is only after the damage has been done. Criminals would have absolutely nothing to fear. Perhaps a mixture of restorative justice and prison would be okay, but having it as the only method of justice just seems ridiculous. What would their incentive to not commit a crime be then?

 

You give criminals the benefit of the doubt far too much.

 

And I don't think we'll ever be able to deter crime, but we could be more proactive about it

 

I'm pretty sure it's possible to convince some people not to commit crimes, but just because it doesn't work for every single criminal does not mean the system is a failure.

 

I cut out all the deterrence stuff to reduce length, but I'm going to comment on it. The thing about deterrence, is it is easy to disprove (large prison populations) and hard to prove. Obviously it isn't an effective deterrent judging on the prison population alone. You can keep saying it is, but I'm pretty sure that tons of experts and studies disagree with you.

 

Onto the restorative justice, yes I am saying it is a better process than jail. Jail has virtually no benefits, except from separating people from society which can cause more harm than good. Restorative justice isn't just meeting with someone and that's that.

 

Trust me, when I first heard about restorative justice, I thought it was all hippy, bleeding heart BS. The more I learned about it and it's successes, the more I realized that this was a way better method than jail. Hell, they took a bunch of people convicted of murder who had served (and were at the time currently serving) time in prison, and put them in an Aboriginal community. No police or anything like that, they basically got adopted by the community and learned how to live and it was amazing to watch. I would love to see more restorative justice programs, granted a sudden switch from our retributive system to a restorative one would have to be very, very gradual, but I think it would be a much better system.

 

Justice isn't limited to only giving the victims peace of mind. A big part of it is to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place, whereas restorative justice is only after the damage has been done. Criminals would have absolutely nothing to fear.

 

Meeting your victim is a HUGE deal. You have to meet them face to face and explain why you did what you did, and listen to how much harm you caused. Many criminals would rather take the however many months or years in prison and be on their way. Imagine having to meet the family of a man you killed while drinking and driving. That is a very, very scary experience. Restorative justice, imo, does a better job at preventing future crime.

 

Also, I'd like to point out that I did mention that there should be more focus on the causes of crime and being more proactive.

 

Really, I'd encourage anyone to read up on restorative justice, it's probably much too big of a topic for me to broach here, but it is quite an interesting topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In regards to Zierro's and Bloodstain's little debate, I'll just say that if I knew I could get away with say stealing a car from a large dealership and never have to worry about getting caught, then I most definitely would....many people would. Also, people don't speed (too much) while driving because of the threat of having to fork out a hundred dollars for a ticket, not because they feel endangered by speeding.

 

I bet any of us could name 5 - 10 people MINIMUM who speed despite knowing the risk of getting a speeding ticket (and probably actually gotten one too).

 

 

 

 

If you have the time, read this meta analysis study. It is 20 pages long, but it is a really good and easy read. Here is part of the summary

Current evidence does not support the specific deterrence argument. Specific deterrence

faces accusations of being criminogenic by contemporary criminological theory. This accusation

is supported by meta-analyses showing that incarceration is associated with increased recidivism

(Smith et al. 2002: 20; Gendreau et al. 1999:19). Therefore, research has shown the

ineffectiveness of specific deterrence through imprisonment as crime prevention.

14

Despite limitations regarding general deterrences research, certainty and severity in

relation to certainty, but not severity alone, supposedly affects an individuals choice to pursue

criminal behaviour (Lab, 2004: 140; Pogarsky, 2002: 445; Grasmick & Bryjak, 1980: 471).

Since researchers neglect to research celerity, the component highly cherished by classical

school authors, this leaves testing of the deterrence theory incomplete. Subsequently, current

research fails to support general deterrence as a whole.

If deterrence is to be effective, it cannot solely rely on imprisonment (Varma & Doob,

1998: 183). As a result, researchers have suggested a new version of deterrence for crime

prevention by combing both informal and formal sanctions (Williams & McShane, 1994: 23;

Baron & Kennedy, 1998: 52). This is supported by the meta-analysis study finding arrests of

employed spousal assaulters reduced offending (Sherman et al. 1997). Then, what is effective

deterrence may be combining certainty of apprehension and the perquisite having social

relationships. This is based on perceptual studies showing certainty is effective (Varma & Doob

1998:181; Baron & Kennedy, 1998: 43; Pogarsky, 2002: 453; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2003: 182) and

individuals can be deterred from crimes through the fear of self-disapproval, social disapproval,

losing accomplishments, and breaking valuable social relationships (Varma & Doob, 1998: 182;

Baron & Kennedy, 1998: 52; Braithwaite, 1995: 192; Laub et al. 1995: 101; Pogarsky, 2002:

444; Wright et al. 2004: 203), rather than the fear of imprisonment.

 

bolding mine

 

http://web.viu.ca/crim/Student/S%20Wu%20Deterrence%20Theory.pdf

[Zierro]

I cut out all the deterrence stuff to reduce length, but I'm going to comment on it. The thing about deterrence, is it is easy to disprove (large prison populations) and hard to prove. Obviously it isn't an effective deterrent judging on the prison population alone. You can keep saying it is, but I'm pretty sure that tons of experts and studies disagree with you.

 

A large prison population does not disprove the fact that prisons deter crime. There are so many other variables to account for. The crime rate could have just went up in general. For all you know, if there weren't any prisons, the crime rate could be even higher (and I bet it would be). If you can find data that shows us that nobody has ever been affected by consequences, then I guess I'm wrong. But until then, you, nor your "experts" have not proven anything. You are just picking numbers and applying them to your argument where they do not fit.

 

Onto the restorative justice, yes I am saying it is a better process than jail. Jail has virtually no benefits, except from separating people from society which can cause more harm than good. Restorative justice isn't just meeting with someone and that's that.

 

Separating criminals from the rest of society causes more harm than good? How so? I believe that preventing murderers from having the opportunity to murder again is a good thing.

 

I bet any of us could name 5 - 10 people MINIMUM who speed despite knowing the risk of getting a speeding ticket (and probably actually gotten one too).

 

Yes, and I bet any of us could name plenty of people who would steal food, clothes, furniture, etc. on a regular basis if they knew they weren't going to be punished. Like I said, just because there are exceptions, does not mean punishment doesn't deter crimes. If punishment deterred even one crime, then the statement, "Punishment deters crime," would be true. Although, I'm pretty sure we're speaking in the thousands here, not just one person.

 

For example, saying that "people eat potatoes" is a true claim. Just because every single human being does not eat potatoes does not mean that the statement is false. I've repeatedly said that there are some people who are not affected by punishments.

 

Current evidence does not support the specific deterrence argument. Specific deterrence

faces accusations of being criminogenic by contemporary criminological theory. This accusation

is supported by meta-analyses showing that incarceration is associated with increased recidivism

(Smith et al. 2002: 20; Gendreau et al. 1999:19). Therefore, research has shown the

ineffectiveness of specific deterrence through imprisonment as crime prevention.

14

 

Incarceration is associated with increased recidivism? You don't say?! Does it really take an expert to tell us that, because we have jails, being jailed a second time is more likely? How does this suggest that jail never affected anyone's choices? A big part of this that you keep overlooking are the people who would have possibly committed crimes if punishment didn't exist.

 

Despite limitations regarding general deterrence’s research, certainty and severity in

relation to certainty, but not severity alone, supposedly affects an individual’s choice to pursue

criminal behaviour

 

Supposedly? Put a mouse in a box with two buttons. One that gives him food and one that shocks him. After a week, which do you think he is more likely to press? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

 

Uh oh, looks like our expert references are disagreeing with each other. They can't both be right, so why assume that "experts" hold so much credibility, especially in a field as complex as psychology? I can appeal to authority just as easily as you can, and my references actually make sense. We should really be looking into the arguments and what is being said, rather than who's saying it.

 

If deterrence is to be effective, it cannot solely rely on imprisonment (Varma & Doob,

1998: 183). As a result, researchers have suggested a new version of deterrence for crime

prevention by combing both informal and formal sanctions (Williams & McShane, 1994: 23;

Baron & Kennedy, 1998: 52). This is supported by the meta-analysis study finding arrests of

employed spousal assaulters reduced offending (Sherman et al. 1997). Then, what is effective

deterrence may be combining certainty of apprehension and the perquisite having social

relationships. This is based on perceptual studies showing certainty is effective (Varma & Doob

1998:181; Baron & Kennedy, 1998: 43; Pogarsky, 2002: 453; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2003: 182) and

individuals can be deterred from crimes through the fear of self-disapproval, social disapproval,

losing accomplishments, and breaking valuable social relationships (Varma & Doob, 1998: 182;

Baron & Kennedy, 1998: 52; Braithwaite, 1995: 192; Laub et al. 1995: 101; Pogarsky, 2002:

444; Wright et al. 2004: 203), rather than the fear of imprisonment.

 

I agree with this part. It's exactly what I proposed. We can use a mixture of both methods, but getting rid of jails is just insane.

[Madmanpur3]

In regards to Zierro's and Bloodstain's little debate, I'll just say that if I knew I could get away with say stealing a car from a large dealership and never have to worry about getting caught, then I most definitely would....many people would. Also, people don't speed (too much) while driving because of the threat of having to fork out a hundred dollars for a ticket, not because they feel endangered by speeding.

 

I bet any of us could name 5 - 10 people MINIMUM who speed despite knowing the risk of getting a speeding ticket (and probably actually gotten one too).

My point was that those who don't, do so because they don't want the ticket...not that tickets deter speeding altogether. So likewise I bet any of us could name 5 - 10 people MINIMUM who don't speed because they don't want to get a ticket.

 

Now obviously the states don't feel the amount of speeding that still occurs is that big of an issue, otherwise they would definitely up the fines to something people couldn't afford. Also, I'm sure they want some speeding to occur to some degree, because it is in fact a major source of revenue.