Assassination in Tucson

[dteowner]

That shows a tremendous lack of compassion for the victim, if you ask me. In your system, the victim and everyone associated with the victim suffer and the ONLY one that comes out with an unaltered life is the perpetrator--the one that chooses to live outside the bounds of that utopia of yours. Do you actually think people will follow rules "just because"? Seriously? Take a look around you. Hell, go visit a major public website or two. Look what happens when there are no consequences. Is that really what your utopia looks like?

@coyote- I realize there aren't many modern studies you could call on, but ignoring the rather significant social, cultural, and legal differences between medieval and modern society for some attempted denouement borders on disingenuous. Besides, quoting percentages tells absolutely nothing about the actual number of incidents, which is the important number.

It’s hard to know the true homicide rate because reporting wasn’t as accurate in those days and crime-solving was basic and often unreliable

Judging by the volume of violent crime in the Middle Ages, this did not appear to act as a deterrent!

We've got no idea what the numbers are, but whatever they are we'll draw dramatic conclusions based on what we choose to call them. Well, by all means, perfesser!

 

[coyote]

@dteowner: First, the total numbers are there: For example, the number of murders per 100,000 people in 1995 to 1997 in London was 2.1. But according to one historian, it would have been about 12 murders per 100,000 people in Fourteenth Century England. The part I quoted I choose to illustrate the severity of punishments, plus the relative numbers do show that crime was much more brutal at the time, with one murder happening for every four thefts. One might think that if the state's legal system makes life cheap, potential murderers will have far less qualms about taking one as well, but I admit that's a bit speculative.

Second, since the social differences are obviously too large to draw any significant conclusions, I included the link to the British study you choose to ignore. This points out that the severity of punishment has, if any, far less influence on crime rates e.g. than the social circumstances of the underclass. Calling for harsh punishments to get one step closer to a non-violent Utopia is, in light of current research, nonsense.

 

[Ubereil]

That shows a tremendous lack of compassion for the victim, if you ask me. In your system, the victim and everyone associated with the victim suffer and the ONLY one that comes out with an unaltered life is the perpetrator—the one that chooses to live outside the bounds of that utopia of yours.

How will giving the perpetrator "the punishment he deserves" make it better? It sucks for the victim and everyone associated with the victim, so therefore it should also suck for the perpetrator? That's strawman socialist equality, DTE - making it equal by ensuring everyone is miserable.

Do you actually think people will follow rules "just because"? Seriously?

I'm not arguing against punishment, I'm arguing against Retributivism. I'm not aruing against punishing pepole to deter crime, I'm arguing against punishing pepole because they "deserve" punishment.

Übereil

 

[dteowner]

How will giving the perpetrator "the punishment he deserves" make it better? It sucks for the victim and everyone associated with the victim, so therefore it should also suck for the perpetrator? That's strawman socialist equality, DTE - making it equal by ensuring everyone is miserable.

Actually, I'm not making it equal since much of the discussion here is revolving around everyone's discomfort with my desire to make it decidedly UNequal in favor of the victims. In order for your little utopia to work, everyone has to live within the bounds of society, whatever those may be. If somebody steps outside those bounds (aka, commits a crime), the whole thing falls apart because the entire social compact is based on everyone following the rules, whatever those rules may be. Obviously, the scope of that "societal damage" will vary based on the crime, but it's unacceptable damage either way. You seek to ignore that damage by giving perpetrators a kiss and hug and let bygones be bygones, and you weaken the social compact every time you do so. Sooner or later, the compact fails--people no longer can rely on your society for their wellbeing and freedom. Why would you want to allow criminals to destroy your utopia from within?

I'm not arguing against punishment, I'm arguing against Retributivism. I'm not aruing against punishing pepole to deter crime, I'm arguing against punishing pepole because they "deserve" punishment.

I guess I'm missing your point here. They deserve punishment solely because they committed the crime. There's no "eye for an eye" morality-based hooey involved. It's a nice, clean case of "These are the rules of this society. Follow the rules or it will suck to be you. Have a nice day."

 

[dteowner]

Second, since the social differences are obviously too large to draw any significant conclusions, I included the link to the British study you choose to ignore. This points out that the severity of punishment has, if any, far less influence on crime rates e.g. than the social circumstances of the underclass. Calling for harsh punishments to get one step closer to a non-violent Utopia is, in light of current research, nonsense.

Your introduction of the second link basically said the evidence shows nothing, so I did skip it. I'll circle back later today.

I'll actually agree with you that the situation of the underclass is a significant factor in crime. I would offer, though, that this is exactly why that first link wasn't terribly applicable. In the industrialized world, things like starvation and slavery (either straight ownership or functionally via indenture or serfdom) aren't really significant issues in our underclass so the "stealing a loaf of bread so her kids don't starve to death" meme is no longer valid as a criminal motive. These days, it primarily boils down to an overgrown sense of entitlement.

 

[Ubereil]

In order for your little utopia to work, everyone has to live within the bounds of society, whatever those may be.

What utopia? All I've said is that I don't understand the point of punishing because it's "just", I've said nothing about punishing for other reasons. There's a difference between punishing someone because said person deserves it and punishing someone to deter crime, you know.

I guess I'm missing your point here. They deserve punishment solely because they committed the crime. There's no "eye for an eye" morality-based hooey involved. It's a nice, clean case of "These are the rules of this society. Follow the rules or it will suck to be you. Have a nice day."

What you're saying is that they deserve to be punished because they committed a crime. That's retributivism. Punishing them in order to make pepole think twice about comitting crimes has nothing to do with whether pepole deserve punishment or not, it has to do with getting pepole to not comit crimes.

I'm more of a rehabilitation kind of guy. Conservative, tough methods tends to be unconstructive in my experience, and are usually rooted in a lack of understanding of the actual problem at hand (in this case the million dollar question is "why do some pepole commit crimes, while others don't?").

Übereil

 

[dteowner]

What you're saying is that they deserve to be punished because they committed a crime. That's retributivism. Punishing them in order to make pepole think twice about comitting crimes has nothing to do with whether pepole deserve punishment or not, it has to do with getting pepole to not comit crimes.

I'm more of a rehabilitation kind of guy. Conservative, tough methods tends to be unconstructive in my experience, and are usually rooted in a lack of understanding of the actual problem at hand (in this case the million dollar question is "why do some pepole commit crimes, while others don't?").

Übereil

Why do the aspects have to be seperated? If you punish the perpetrator, you really get double duty from it. First, you maintain your social compact with the simple, "IF you break then rules, THEN bad things happen to you." Second, you get the bonus of reinforcing acceptable behavior among the remaining members of your society, "Wow, look what happened to that bastard for breaking that rule. Since I do not want that to happen to me, I will not break that rule."

Excepting the handful of genuine mental cases (where there is no rational thought as we know it, or no self-preservation instinct as we know it), people commit crimes because they make the decision that the potential gains outweigh the potential losses. Very simple, really. The benefit of having $100 without earning it outweighs the potential loss of going to jail for theft. The benefit of getting your drunk ass home outweighs the potential loss of a fine for DUI. The benefit of sexual domination outweighs the potential loss of a couple years in jail for rape.

Fixing that balance is simple. The potential benefit is effectively fixed by criminal opportunity, so the only alternative is to increase the potential loss.

Take a look at recidivism rates and then talk to me about the myth of rehabilitation.

 

[Ubereil]

Why do the aspects have to be seperated?

Because one reason is good and the other isn't.

First, you maintain your social compact with the simple, "IF you break then rules, THEN bad things happen to you." Second, you get the bonus of reinforcing acceptable behavior among the remaining members of your society, "Wow, look what happened to that bastard for breaking that rule. Since I do not want that to happen to me, I will not break that rule."

Excepting the handful of genuine mental cases (where there is no rational thought as we know it, or no self-preservation instinct as we know it), people commit crimes because they make the decision that the potential gains outweigh the potential losses. Very simple, really. The benefit of having $100 without earning it outweighs the potential loss of going to jail for theft. The benefit of getting your drunk ass home outweighs the potential loss of a fine for DUI. The benefit of sexual domination outweighs the potential loss of a couple years in jail for rape.

Fixing that balance is simple. The potential benefit is effectively fixed by criminal opportunity, so the only alternative is to increase the potential loss.

Take a look at recidivism rates and then talk to me about the myth of rehabilitation.

That reasoning makes perfect sense if we assume all pepole are rational egoists, DTE. However, few pepole are. Most pepole instead don't rob their neighbour because they feel theft is wrong. Most pepole don't drive home while drunk because they don't feel they have the right to expose others to the risk of having them on the street. Most pepole don't rape other pepole because they don't feel they have the right to do it (…allthough, this idea is disturbingly uncommon).

In short, most pepole don't commit crimes because they don't think it's justified to commit crimes. Criminals feel it is (obviously, since they wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't).

And Amercan prisons (and prisons in general, to that) aren't based on the idea of Rehabilitation, so it's only natural they'll suck at it.

Übereil

 

[coyote]

[…]I'll actually agree with you that the situation of the underclass is a significant factor in crime. I would offer, though, that this is exactly why that first link wasn't terribly applicable. In the industrialized world, things like starvation and slavery (either straight ownership or functionally via indenture or serfdom) aren't really significant issues in our underclass so the "stealing a loaf of bread so her kids don't starve to death" meme is no longer valid as a criminal motive. These days, it primarily boils down to an overgrown sense of entitlement.

You know, I agree with you there, even in that the first link about medieval punishment was a bit polemic on my part. As I see it, people are different, and some are more prone to commit crimes than others based on 1) the environment they grew up in 2) the circumstances they live in 3) and yes, to some degree their genetic predispositions as well. This being said, people cannot be divided into "law abiding citizen" and "hopeless gangster", but instead live on a distribution between these extremes. If they are rejected by society, they are drifting more to the criminal side, and if their ties with the rest of society are strong, they tend to be more on the civil side. If they are living comfortably, they rarely see a need to be violent, but if they are without job, without insurance, and without any other source of income, they are more likely to get money through criminal means.

Even some pretty crazy people manage to lead non-violent and productive lives in the right kind of society, but obviously, there will always be outliers where the system fails, and there are only few things a society can do to deal with that, e.g. 1) to make it more difficult for an individual to do a lot of damage by restricting access to lethal weapons, 2) to isolate them from the rest of society to prevent further harm, 3) to assist them to integrate back into society if possible and 4) to use punishment as a deterrent for others. As I said before, though, harsh punishments also reflect back onto the society: if the state becomes unjust in the eyes of an individual, there is little incentive to abide by its rules. This is one of the reasons why I am not too happy with harsh punishments. Another one, relevant for capital punishment, is courts failing. It happens. A third one relates to the first but can stand on its own as well: a legal system should be fair and punishments not disproportionate, as a matter of principle. Obviously, this can be a little subjective, though.

Why do the aspects have to be seperated? If you punish the perpetrator, you really get double duty from it. First, you maintain your social compact with the simple, "IF you break then rules, THEN bad things happen to you." Second, you get the bonus of reinforcing acceptable behavior among the remaining members of your society, "Wow, look what happened to that bastard for breaking that rule. Since I do not want that to happen to me, I will not break that rule."

Really the same thing, once applied to anyone thinking about committing a crime, once applied to, uhm, anyone thinking about committing a crime

 

[dteowner]

That reasoning makes perfect sense if we assume all pepole are rational egoists, DTE. However, few pepole are. Most pepole instead don't rob their neighbour because they feel theft is wrong.

I'd love to take credit for setting a brilliant trap, but the reality is you just kinda walked right into it without me realizing it was there. This is EXACTLY why a rigorous set of laws with clearly defined significant consequences is undeniably mandatory for a functional society. As soon as you introduce morality ("theft is wrong"), you've got a subjective system. You can't run the railroad on some fluffy, touchy-feelie subjective system because it's...well...subjective. You say that smoking pot is a victimless crime; I say that smoking pot deprives society of a fully functional contributor. You say that abortion keeps unwanted children from being born; I say that abortion is murder. (Actually, I don't personally take either of those positions, but they're excellent examples of moral relativism with both sides having at least a couple legitimate, scientifically supported arguments, so I'm going to run with them). You say that the wealthy should pay more taxes; I say they shouldn't be punished for being successful by rewarding people that choose not to try (yes, I know not all poor people are lazy leeches, just an inaccurate generalization for brevity's sake).

Some people aren't going to agree with some laws. As coyote points out, you've got a spectrum of what let's call "moral codes" so relying on vague moral constraints ("theft is wrong") is only going to be effective on the portion of your society with "scores on their 1-100 moral scale" that tell them theft is wrong. Problem is, those aren't the ones that are going to steal anyway, by definition! You've got to have a system to deal with the ones that DON'T think "theft is wrong" and the only way you're going to manage that is to tip that cost/benefit balance. Under that system, it doesn't matter what prompts the unacceptable moral code (as coyote points out, that's a very complex question, so why deal with it if we don't have to) because all that subjective hooey is tossed in favor of clearly defined, objective systems.

Better yet, while the approach is certainly draconian, it is not authoritarian. People still can make personal choices. The rules are clearly defined, objective, and uniformly applied, unlike an authoritarian system where the rules are subject to the capricious whim of the ruler. It's choice and consequence, and each individual is free to choose their own path within society.

 

[coyote]

That's right! Here is my suggested system of legal judgement:

Homicide => Beheading
Rape => Beheading
Burglary => Beheading
Vehicle theft => Beheading
Tax evasion => Beheading
Spitting chewing gum on the side walk => Beheading
Stepping on the lawn => Beheading

Unlike our overinflated, complex system of law, this is easy to understand, simple to implement and, to make a great thing even better, cheap because you save public money for prisons which you can use for better purposes, e.g. health care and education, something that benefits good, law abiding citizens instead of criminal parasites!

I forgot to put in hanging, drawing and quartering, but let's reserve that for repeat offenders…

 

[fatBastard()]

Well, I'd hate to point out a minor flaw in your otherwise brilliant system Coyote, but how do you hang a repeat offender, that's already been beheaded on the first offence?

Other that that, I'd have to say that for once I totally agree with dteowner. Normally we're in opposite ends in the political spectrum but when it comes to crime and punishment I have nothing but disdain for the extremely whimpy penal system here in Scandinavia. Phooey!

You want a good example about what happens when a illegal act leads to no or very little punishment, then look no further than software piracy. Everyone knows it is illegal and everyone knows that the chance of being caught is extremely slim, so thousands upon thousands of people don't give a shit. Or what about riding the public transportation without buying a ticket. Or speeding. Or driving while on the phone without a hands free installation … yes, these are all minor things compared to homicide, but if we assume the principle is the same, then the amount of people who never break the law because it is "wrong" and not because doing so will have consequences are no longer as clearly defined as when we're talking about murder. Who can honestly claim to never having pirated anything themselves or know someone who has?

But enough about trivialities. I didn't mean to stray from the serious matter in this topic, so I'll reiterate that while laws apply to everyone, the punishment for breaking the laws are only really applicable to the ones that intends to break them, so if the punishment itself is not enough of a deterrent in the first place, then at least the bastard will not be able to break any further laws while he's rotting away in prison. Good riddance.

 

[Ubereil]

I'd love to take credit for setting a brilliant trap, but the reality is you just kinda walked right into it without me realizing it was there.

I might have walked into a trap if it wasn't for the fact that I've never (not once) said we don't need punishment. I'm not an anarchist at all, and I've never claimed to be either. You might think you've managed to crack me, but all you've managed to do is knock in open doors.

You attacked a straw man and therefore your post landed well wide of my actual position.

You've got to have a system to deal with the ones that DON'T think "theft is wrong" and the only way you're going to manage that is to tip that cost/benefit balance.

...and to rehabilitate them. If you manage to help a criminal back into society (if you're a criminal getting back into society is really, really hard) you'll have taken a burden and turned it into an asset. It's what's best for society and what's best for the criminal.

Also, it's worth noting that harsh punishment isn't all that good at deterring criminals. It's more important that it seems likely you'll get caught, that's really what makes criminals hesitate.

Other that that, I'd have to say that for once I totally agree with dteowner. Normally we're in opposite ends in the political spectrum but when it comes to crime and punishment I have nothing but disdain for the extremely whimpy penal system here in Scandinavia. Phooey!

That we have the lowest crime rate isn't something that attracts you?

Übereil

 

[dteowner]

That's right! Here is my suggested system of legal judgement:

Homicide => Beheading
Rape => Beheading
Burglary => Beheading
Vehicle theft => Beheading
Tax evasion => Beheading
Spitting chewing gum on the side walk => Beheading
Stepping on the lawn => Beheading

Unlike our overinflated, complex system of law, this is easy to understand, simple to implement and, to make a great thing even better, cheap because you save public money for prisons which you can use for better purposes, e.g. health care and education, something that benefits good, law abiding citizens instead of criminal parasites!

I forgot to put in hanging, drawing and quartering, but let's reserve that for repeat offenders…

I realize you're intending sarcasm, but it's a fairly clear summary of my position when all is said and done. Not really a proponent of "one punishment fits all", though. I'm fine with the traditional "sliding scale" of crime versus punishment; I'd just like to shift the nominal a fair bit (particularly on violent crime) and remove the functional boundary on the high side (capital punishment, currently too rare anyway, should occur 1 year from the date of sentence rather than our current performance of 10-20 years--if the defense can't dig up enough doubt to overturn the sentence in 1 year, they ain't gonna get there). We also have advantages in impact over those medieval folks you linked earlier in that when we do "public hangings", our "public" can be the entire world rather than just the folks within walking distance of the town square.

 

[dteowner]

…and to rehabilitate them.

Reactive response. The crime is already done and you already have innocent victims. What's better, treating a full-blown disease or preventative medicine? So why do you support the exact opposite on this issue?

 

[Corwin]

There's an assumption here that people can be, or want to be rehabilitated!! For some, Yes, but not for all. Thus, that can only be the second part of the equation. Dte and I are both parents and know how to raise kids properly. Actions with consequences which may involve punishment are an essential part of that. I totally agree with Dte that to be a deterrant, punishment MUST be severe enough to tip the win loss scale. I have NO sympathy for crims and tons for victims. Idealism is wonderful, but frequently impractical. Soft justice systems are a joke and the law often a money making ass.

 

[Michael Ellis]

Off recent topic but on thread topic.

"He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/u...d=3&adxnnlx=1295272816-mzPTbiXmgfYK5d56DmiDjg
Loughner is likely certifiably mentally ill.
But definitely not "right wing".
If anything, "left wing".

 

[Ubereil]

Reactive response. The crime is already done and you already have innocent victims.

Yeah, but that's impossible to change. Even if we run the perpetrator through a meat grinder the crime won't be undone.

What's better, treating a full-blown disease or preventative medicine? So why do you support the exact opposite on this issue?

A combination, since preventative medicine doesn't catch all. Preventative medicine gives us less full blown disease to deal with, but once the full blown disease pops up we need to treat that as well. Expecting preventative medicine to do all the work is unrealistic.

(Of course, my idea of "preventative medicine" in this area is teaching kids to respect others and that they have a responsibility towards others, starting from their first day in school.)

Übereil

 

[coyote]

There's an assumption here that people can be, or want to be rehabilitated!! For some, Yes, but not for all. Thus, that can only be the second part of the equation. Dte and I are both parents and know how to raise kids properly. Actions with consequences which may involve punishment are an essential part of that. I totally agree with Dte that to be a deterrant, punishment MUST be severe enough to tip the win loss scale. I have NO sympathy for crims and tons for victims. Idealism is wonderful, but frequently impractical. Soft justice systems are a joke and the law often a money making ass.

I am sorry, Corwin. Are you saying that as a good parent, you should physically punish your children?

I am very confused now.

 

[dteowner]

I don't believe that concept is even implied anywhere in his statement. Isn't that one of those logical flatulence thingies you ivory tower types love throwing around? Something about wheat stalks?

To answer your accusation, there's a big difference between corporal punishment and child abuse. To borrow a phrase, God gave kids well-padded bottoms for a reason.