Justice System Fails

[Dizzle229]

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...

 

<_<

 

I'm a little confused. Does the store have proof besides her word that they were stolen? And can the police become involved?

[Bloodstain]

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.

 

 

If the crime rates go up, then jail isn't a very effective deterrent is it? The deterrence model states that prisons deter, so there shouldn't be much crime, which there obviously is. How is it an effective deterrent then? (also see below hidden quote for profile of offenders)

 

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.

 

You are putting criminals with criminals. The only thing you learn in prison is how to be a better criminal. And make new connections. Murder accounts for a very small portion of prison populations.

 

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.

 

So what good is jail then, if it has no affect on prisoners? And YOU are the one who thinks it is a deterrent, yet you don't even know what specific deterrence is? This is why I hate arguing with people who do not know about criminal justice.

 

 

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

 

I know what conditioning is very well, and that it is dependent on trials. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but if it is about severity, then no longer/more severe sentences have no effect.

 

[hide]

"Even if they know what the rule is, a very large percentage of offenders have limited capacity, either because they have serious drug and alcohol problems, serious mental illness or other kinds of behavioral control problems," said Paul Robinson, lead author of the study, "Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioral Science Investigation. "They assume the rules are as they assume they should be."

 

Robinson and co-researcher John Darley of Princeton University found that many criminals don't perform a rational cost-benefit calculation, and, even if they compared the positive and negative consequences of their actions they often would choose to commit the crime.

 

"Potential offenders don't seriously take into account getting caught, so it doesn't matter what you're threatening to punish at the other end. Doubling the prison sentence is not something that's going to make a difference to people who don't think they're going to get caught," Robinson said.

 

The researchers say increasing funding for community awareness and education programs and also increasing police patrols could be more effective than the threat of a harsh prison sentence.

 

"Knowing that a police officer is driving by every 30 minutes rather than every three days could have a greater deterrent effect," Robinson said.

 

The researchers say that any criminal-justice system that imposes some type of punishment for crimes will achieve a natural deterrent effect, which at best will affect only a small number of potential criminals.

[/hide]

 

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=634

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.

 

And what references would those be?

 

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.

 

 

 

Did you read the entire article? And what part exactly is there psychology? These aren't psychologists.

 

Once again I'm going to let the topic die, mostly because when it comes to CJ, it is incredibly frustrating trying to talk with someone who has no specific knowledge about it. I don't mean that as an insult, but there is a lot more to CJ than most people assume. And we are just going round and round in circles, and I don't think it's going to end unless one of us stops

[Zierro]

If the crime rates go up, then jail isn't a very effective deterrent is it? The deterrence model states that prisons deter, so there shouldn't be much crime, which there obviously is. How is it an effective deterrent then? (also see below hidden quote for profile of offenders)

 

I just went over this. You're claiming that if we have jails, and some crimes still happen, that suggests to us that jail doesn't work. You are completely ignoring the number of people who do not commit crimes and will never go to jail because they are too afraid to commit crimes because of it. And although the number of people like that would be hard to measure, that does not automatically make it 0.

 

You're absolutely right - there is a lot more to Criminal Justice than most people assume. :lol:

 

You are putting criminals with criminals. The only thing you learn in prison is how to be a better criminal. And make new connections. Murder accounts for a very small portion of prison populations.

 

If they are around the innocent, they have more of an opportunity to harm the innocent. If they are around other criminals, they will find out better ways to harm the innocent, but what use is that when you're in jail? Either you're proposing we keep each inmate in his own individual area or we let them all free. Neither of them seem realistic. Yeah, the system isn't perfect, but at least you're preventing them from harming anymore innocent people, even if only temporarily.

 

So what good is jail then, if it has no affect on prisoners? And YOU are the one who thinks it is a deterrent, yet you don't even know what specific deterrence is? This is why I hate arguing with people who do not know about criminal justice.

 

Even if it doesn't affect the actual prisoners (which I never said), it can set an example for people who otherwise would've went to jail if there were no example.

 

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.

 

Also, I think you misinterpreted me. I was pointing out how if we never had jails, of course there would be no such thing as re-jailing. They made an obvious claim and then for some reason said it supported the fact that jails do not deter crime. That's not how you find out whether jails deter crime or not. If you really wanted to prove that, you'd have to compare a world without jails and a world with jails. Until we can do that, all we can do is make educated guesses, going by the simple logic that people are affected by consequences. Nothing you brought up has disproved that, and it's what the entire debate is about.

 

Robinson and co-researcher John Darley of Princeton University found that many criminals don't perform a rational cost-benefit calculation, and, even if they compared the positive and negative consequences of their actions they often would choose to commit the crime.

 

Again, your experts prove nothing other than how they are pseudo-intellectuals.

 

Of course criminals, people who have committed crimes despite the punishment, don't use cost-benefit calculation (otherwise they wouldn't be criminals, would they?). But non-criminals, such as the people who have not committed crimes but would have if there were no negative consequences, do use the cost-benefit calculation. And that is who deterrents are mainly aimed at - the people who are affected by them and can be deterred, as opposed to the people who can't. They are to prevent otherwise-future-criminals from becoming criminals.

 

And what references would those be?

 

Your references of "experts" who are just throwing facts out there and giving support which are complete non sequiturs.

 

Did you read the entire article? And what part exactly is there psychology? These aren't psychologists.

 

Criminal Justice is very relevant to the psychology of criminal behavior.

[The_Gabe]

Zierro, about the scare tactic, the end does not justify the means. Not by a long shot.

[baalboy5]

It's legal to rape someone in New Jersey if you say "surprise!" first.

[Zierro]

Zierro, about the scare tactic, the end does not justify the means. Not by a long shot.

 

If you're saving innocent people from getting harmed, it sure as hell does.

 

Blood's posts were far more constructive and he didn't convince me that punishing crimes is a stupid thing to do. What makes you think shouting an unsupported claim will change my mind? Sorry if that comes out as rude, but come on, put more effort in than that. We really won't get anywhere if it's just a back-and-forth of yeses and nos.