Use of Imprisonment against crime

What are the other options?

 

Chop off a hand for a first offence

 

I'll post more when I have access to a good keyboard, but I'll just say for now that the protection of the innocents in society is paramount. Throw away the key and if it's too costly cut costs by cutting frills.

 

That argument relies on a high re-offending rate, LDK. I don't know how high such rates are, but I'm sure in countries such as Denmark, where the focus is on rehabilitation, re-offending rates would be a lot less.

 

They try and rehabilitate prisoners over here...it doesn't work that well

 

Well there is the answer, let's send all of our criminals to Danish prisons.

 

bwa bwa bwa.

One of the differences is that countries with a lower prison population usually tend to not have mandatory sentencing and so harsh sentences for drug related crimes. For instance possession of a small amount of Marijuana leads to confiscation of the marijuana and no charges for the consumer. In the US, as a result of harsh drug laws, it is so that people go to jail for such things in a routine basis.

The reason for the different treatment is that in the US politicians have enacted into law the belief that the harsher a law the better it is. Who wants to be accused to be lax on drugs?

In my country the view on mere Marijuana possession, is that it is not serious enough a crime to be worth to clog the courts and jails with offenders, and that there is little if any harm to society in people smoking joints. Thus the drugs are confiscated if found, and unless the amount found is significant enough to suggest trade (in which case a prosecution will follow) no charges will be filed.

 

Look, for relatively minor crimes, rehabilitation might work. But I'm talking the seriously violent crimes like murder, rape, aggravated assault -- under most circumstances these people cannot be rehabilitated. Nor should we just make excuses for their crimes and release them back into the community again, and when they do it again, we say "well, he had a hard time growing up" or "wow, he sure is a troublemaker!"

I don't know about the rest of the world but here in Canada our system doesn't give a damn about the victims. They get to read a "victim impact statement" at the trial which the judge (because he is so wise and superior to everyone else -- unelected, I might add) usually takes with a grain of salt. Then they get a pathetic slap on the wrist and are out and back to their criminal ways in a heartbeat.

I'll make this simple. As far as I am concerned, if you rape, murder, maim, assault, or otherwise violently affect another human being . . .

I don't care how tough you had it growing up.

I don't care how poor or disadvantaged you are.

I don't care about your ethnicity or skin colour.

I don't care if you're really, really sorry.

I just don't ****ing care.

You deserve to be in jail for a very, very very long time, so that decent people don't have to worry about you sneaking up behind them while they are walking in the park. In an ideal world, the particularly grievous cases would go to the Great Prison in the Sky, but Canada is far too gutless for that. I know I'll draw flack for that, but I don't care. No one can convince me that the likes of Paul Bernardo, Karl Toft, Clifford Olsen, or Leo Teskey deserve anything but death. Their guilt is not in question. The uselessness of our criminal justice system is.

I know I'll also draw flack for not using links that are sufficiently liberal for some board members, but when it comes to ridiculousness like this, I also just don't care.

edit: DMC, if a person is on their third strike, don't you think they'd have the brainpower to just, oh, I don't know, stop committing crimes? I m ean, it's not like they haven't had 2 chances already, right? I've got no sympathy for people who commit criminal acts, no matter how minor. If they can't learn some frickin self control, they need to be penned up. The other option is to have people (as we do in Canada) with criminal records logging 70 felony convictions*! I mean, holy Batpoop, Batman, is the whole "rehabilitation" technique working for that guy? Obviously not.

*I have a friend who works in Criminal Justice records, and this file crossed her desk. She couldn't give me his name because, of course, he has a right to privacy, but she said she was just flabbergasted when she looked at it. She found out later, he is hardly an anomaly.

Oh, Canada, our Home and Native Land, where Criminals run free, and have the Upper Hand!

 

Actually, I could get behind a movement to bring the stocks back.

 

That reminds me of Raising Arizona, where Nicolas Cage's character perpetually commits robberies, is arrested and incarcerated, eventually goes before the parole board, and is re-released after they ask him if he's learned his lesson, he says yes, and they say "well alright then," as if this time will be different.

 

To follow up on what dmc said, I know a lot of people who have been caught using marijuana, and none of them have gone to prison. In most states possession of a small amount of marijuana (typically less than one ounce) is not even a felony. It's called "simple possession" and it's a misdemeanor. Felony level possession is usually termed "possession with intent to distribute", and is usually limited to quantities that would exceed personal use.

That said, I saw a statistic a few months back that said 25% of all people in US prisons are there for drug-related crimes, with the majority marijuana related.

 

So I read this column here -- it's a nationally syndicated column, and those who think I'm using the same source too often, well, sorry, this is where I get my news. I did, however, look up a commentary on the report (couldn't find the report itself in the short search time I had.) I will, however, quote what the Professor said regarding the liberal elite telling us lowly peons how stupid we are to want rapists and murders kept away from society:

To those who think I overreact to crime, or that a dose of TLC will magically turn the Jeffrey Dahmers, Zodiac Killers, and Timothy McVeighs of the world into solid upstanding citizens, I say, my perceptions are fine, and I don't need smug people who don't care at all about victims to tell me what to think.

Maybe things are different in the States, I don't know. But here, it's a facet of Canadian society that really, really pisses me off.

 

I agree with LKD. The man makes a good point.

 

Oh the irony... It may actually be those who live in violent neighborhoods that have false perceptions about crime.

As far as your stance on the worst of the worst criminals, I don't think anyone shed a tear when Timothy McVeigh was executed.

 

I think we (as a society) have it wrong overall. For some, rehabilitation is not reasonable and those individuals simply need to be removed from society for the safety of the citizens. Institutions can either isolate or rehabilitate. Right now we try to make our prison system do both in the same locations and so we fail at both.

 

How do you decide which is which T2?

As for me the question is tricky but it is interesting to note that it appears that the harsher a society is on crime the more crime it gets.

It sure feels nice to "stick it to he criminal poopholes" and punish them severly but everything seems to point towards it not actually helping whatsoever. It may get that specific dick off the streets but somehow it seems to create three more for every one put away.

 

Good question, joacqin. I think you need to look at the nature of the crime, the underlying causes, and mental health of the criminal. For violent crimes with low chance of rehabilitation (such as rape) or for heinous crimes (murder, assault were there was clear advance planning) you would probably shift to isolation on the first instance. Otherwise, I think the "three strikes, you're out" designation may be appropriate for most crimes. I used big, sweeping generalities there and it would obviously be more complex.

 

I don't think you overreact to crime but you seem to have great faith in the fairness and the ability of the justice system to not only be fair, but to convict the right person.

I'm not really sure what "TLC" had to do with any of this. Can you please explain?

I'm not sure what the "liberal elite" is. Can you explain? Most of the rich here, are Republican conservatives, who have too much money to go to prison anyway. Many liberals in my country are minorities who live in poorer neighborhoods, are usually not referred to as "elite" and who can't afford good lawyers, the way that some in better neighborhoods can. But if you can begin by expalining who the "liberal elite" is, that would be helpful.