How should we deal with our criminals?

[Nanor]

Bit of a spin off thread from the Saddam death penalty thread, I was curious as to how you guys thought we should deal with our criminals. Personally, I don't have a clue, but I remember watching an episode of StargateG1 and the travelled to some world where all, and I mean all crimes were punished by life sentences. Theoretically, it would mean crimes are only commited in hot blood or by maniacs. And I know some of you are thinking what about Mr. X who stole Mr. Y's bread, should he really be sentenced for life? Well my response is, should we really be living in a word where people need to steal for food.

Whether that would actually work is debatable and considerably leaning towards "No!" but I just thought it could work. So what do you guys think?

 

[[THN]Buffalo_Hunter]

Death penalty for murder of any kind as long as the evidence is insurmountable.

Life sentences for attempted murder and similar - and life means life - no parole.

Other crimes - prison sentences to reflect the magnitude of the crime including chain gangs. These could be used to clean up deprived areas, remove graffiti and so on. They would also have to wear shocking pink overalls while they're outside.

My particular pet hates - using a mobile phone while driving - £1000 fine. Driving without insurance/driving licence/tax - immediate confiscation of the car, £1000 fine, car crushed unless insurance/tax is produced within 2 weeks. "Decent" cars re-registered and sold to fund more police officers on the beat.

 

[thatbloke]

Death penalty for murder of any kind as long as the evidence is insurmountable.

Life sentences for attempted murder and similar - and life means life - no parole.

Other crimes - prison sentences to reflect the magnitude of the crime including chain gangs. These could be used to clean up deprived areas, remove graffiti and so on. They would also have to wear shocking pink overalls while they're outside.

My particular pet hates - using a mobile phone while driving - £1000 fine. Driving without insurance/driving licence/tax - immediate confiscation of the car, £1000 fine, car crushed unless insurance/tax is produced within 2 weeks. "Decent" cars re-registered and sold to fund more police officers on the beat.

I agree with every single point on that

 

[elDiablo]

Nice ideas except that the cost of putting those people in prison for life would be HUGE. Prisons would have to be completely re-thought, such as prisons growing ALL their own food, and pretty much being turned into factories so that the prisoners can pay for themselves being kept in prison. And why would the government use the money the prisons are making on the prisons when more could go on health-care (or in their pockets)?

Also, police auctions have a reputation of selling things cheap. So even if they sold off the cars they impounded, they wouldn't make enough to hire more police-peoples.

Say a "decent" car sold for £500 (some may sell for £100, some might sell for £1000). The average police wage being about £20/year, thats 40 cars that need to be sold per new police person. And that's not even thinking about the fact that a police will cost about twice their actual wage to the force (equipment both in and out of the office), so thats 80 cars. Then the little costs, such as the cost of impounding the cars, and storing them, and then auctioning them. So we'll say about 100 cars need to be auctioned off for every new police officer.

It's a good idea, but then think how many more police officers you will need to watch over all the life term criminals in jail, especially if they are being given tools and the likes with which to farm or produce goods to be sold, to pay for them being kept in prison. Say, 2,000 more officers?

That's 2,000,000 cars that need to be auctioned. Now, Wikipedia says that there were estimated to be 50,431,700 people in the UK in 2005. So that's 1 in 25 people's cars we would have to impound and auction off. I know more then 25 people with cars, so that's at least someone I know. And I don't think any of them have not got a tax disc, etc.

Still, it would be nice if the world worked

 

[Taffy]

I'm with Buffalo, but with a few alterations:

ANY murderer should be sentenceed to death, a sentence which should be completed if an appeal fails.

Peadophiles, rapists and criminals who convict other such crimes should also be sentenced to death.

 

[[THN]Buffalo_Hunter]

They reckon that 1 in 5 drivers have no insurance, so there's plenty out there waiting to be nicked. As for value, I was thinking more about cars worth over £5000.

As for the rest, they could be stripped down and sold as parts for repairs - that would bring repair costs down for some, good for the environment too.

Maybe I should run for PM?

 

[DocBot]

I'm sorry;

Death penalty for murder of any kind as long as the evidence is insurmountable.

ANY murderer should be sentenceed to death, a sentence which should be completed if an appeal fails.

Nice alteration there Taffy.

Or did you misread BH's post?

 

[Taffy]

Ah, yes, I misunderstood it.

Nevertheless, I still believe it.

 

[DocBot]

So, the question then: this is because of your own personal needs for vengeance?

Because it has been proven over and over that there is no "discouraging" (can't think of the word) effect from the death penalty, when it comes to murder.

 

[Pestcontrol]

Bit of a spin off thread from the Saddam death penalty thread, I was curious as to how you guys thought we should deal with our criminals. Personally, I don't have a clue, but I remember watching an episode of StargateG1 and the travelled to some world where all, and I mean all crimes were punished by life sentences. Theoretically, it would mean crimes are only commited in hot blood or by maniacs. And I know some of you are thinking what about Mr. X who stole Mr. Y's bread, should he really be sentenced for life? Well my response is, should we really be living in a word where people need to steal for food.

Whether that would actually work is debatable and considerably leaning towards "No!" but I just thought it could work. So what do you guys think?

Nice post nanor. Shame i can't give you rep yet.

First up, i think there is too much focus on punishment. The goal is reducing crime, punishment is only one part of that. Another is that criminals should have a high chance of getting caught, and thirdly crime is often the result of socioeconomic factors so improving those, by reducing poverty and broken families for example, reduces crime as well. The best approach in these matters of policy imho is a battle on all fronts at once.

I believe the punishment should fit the crime, up to the maximum of life in prison. A murder does not always warrant a high sentence, think of a wife stabbing her abusive husband after he comes home drunk again and starts to beat her. I don't think sentences need to be higher than they currently are, barring some exceptions.

Annoyances are just that, annoying. Still the punishment should fit the crime so i'm against such excessive fines. Rather make sure people who break the law get caught and increase fines only for repeated offenders, and campaign for better safety. Positive motivation is better than negative motivation.

So how should we deal with our criminals? Treat them humanely, reward good behaviour and punish bad behaviour. Give them some control over their time in prison, to motivate a positive attitude. Prison should not be luxurious but it shouldnt be cruel either. A prison system that's a jungle where only the strongest and smartest survive unscathed like in the USA will only teach criminals to become better criminals.
For similar reasons i'm also all for alternative punishments and a pragmatic approach. It's a least-cost-to-society type of equation.

The system you saw in the stargate is unforgiving. Forgiveness to those who earn it is a good thing.

 

[Taffy]

But in Brtain I think that our society is too forgiving, and that is a lot more dangerous than being too unforgiving, don't you think?

I agree with your point on murders, as 'murder' is often what I would classify as 'self-defence'. Maybe a tiered system, whereby there are several grades of murder, ranging from euthanasia to serial homicide. That would give the system some more flexibility, making it more practical and fitting in todays society.

@ DocBot: It's because I want to see people punished for what they do to other people. I care about other humans, but some 'people' (e.g. peadophiles) I don't give a flying monkey about. They can rot in hell for all I care, as long as they aren't doing anyone else damage in the process. And no, I don't think that peadophiles etc. should be given second chances in society. They can't be trusted.

In my view it would be a lot more efficient and cost-effective to sentence them to death rather than have them clogging up our prisons. Why should my parents pay for those scumbags to live? They don't deserve to live in my opinion, and my parents taxes would be much better spent on the NHS, which is in a complete shambles at the moment and needs the money more than those people do.

 

[Gibsonfire]

@ DocBot: It's because I want to see people punished for what they do to other people. I care about other humans, but some 'people' (e.g. peadophiles) I don't give a flying monkey about. They can rot in hell for all I care, as long as they aren't doing anyone else damage in the process. And no, I don't think that peadophiles etc. should be given second chances in society. They can't be trusted.

Yes but whos to say its entirely the peadophiles fault? I agree it is sick and wrong but these things can come around from a disturbed childhood or even being abused themselves.

 

[DocBot]

So many arguments to choose from... how about this one?

Miscarriage of justice. In the UK/Scotland/Wales:

In the past decade the Court of Appeal has allowed an average of 770 successful appeals against criminal convictions every year. The Crown Court overturns around 3,500 criminal convictions a year that were made in Magistrates’ courts

(link)

There is also a clear relation between your social background and race, and how harshly you are judged for your crimes.

This means that

a) you accept the fact that some innocent will be executed along with the guilty (as it is in the US), and also that more people from poor background and with darker skin colour will be sentenced to death or

b) the whole question is academic until [omnicogniscent being of your choice] him/her/them/itself steps down/up/in/etc from [location of said being] and sits judge.

...right?

 

[Taffy]

The relation between social background/race and how you are punished does not necessarily mean that the system is corrupt. Maybe its just a fact of life that more 'lower-class' (I don't like the class system btw) ethnic minorities commit crime, so the system punishes them more harshly.

And yes some innocent people will be executed, but the same holds true for imprisonment. Yet people who argue against the death penalty say that prison is worse than execution, so those innocent people who are put in prison will therefore be much worse off, right? We have to accept that every system has flaws.

 

[BiG D]

Yet people who argue against the death penalty say that prison is worse than execution

People who argue that simply have their priorities backwards. It isn't about what is better punishment, it's about how things stack up morally.

 

[DocBot]

Yet people who argue against the death penalty say that prison is worse than execution

Okay then, let's play it that way: people who argue for the death penalty say you should get it for stealing. Or looking at someone the wrong way.

or, simply put: I fail to see how that has any relevance to this argument. I never said that. Also, the major difference here, which by the way also is an argument against the death penalty, is that if you're imprisoned you can be let out if you manage to prove your innocence. Harder to get resurrected, methinks.

We have to accept that every system has flaws

Indeed we have. Then again, in some instances, such as this one, we decide what consequences those flaws bring. For me, the state murdering (yes, murdering, "Murder: The unlawful killing of a human being with deliberate intent to kill" - of course we could debate whether it would be unlawful or not, but being innocent makes it unlawful to kill you in my eyes, at least) innocent people is not an acceptable consequence of a flawed system, when it can easily be avoided. Not even if you get to kill guilty people. Edit: guilty people as well, that is.

 

[Taffy]

I said people speaking in generalities. Those who argue for the death penalty and say thta thieves should get it are fools. I disagree with them more than those who are entirely against it.

I personally think that living in a prison for 30 years then getting pardoned is similar to the death penalty. The damage has already been done. Speaking personally, i'd rather be put to sleep quietly than spend 30 years in prison just to hear its been a waste of my life because i'm innocent. Sure, you've saved a life, but is that life really worth saving if its just been torn to shreds? All I know is that if I spent 30 years in prison for a murder I didn't commit, i'd kill myself as soon as I was released because the system made a mistake. That life isnt worth living.

 

[BiG D]

All I know is that if I spent 30 years in prison for a murder I didn't commit, i'd kill myself as soon as I was released because the system made a mistake.

Would you? Would you really? I think you should consider what you're saying. How does having your name cleared and being released from prison even remotely lead to something like suicide?! I am having real trouble with the logic here...

 

[Cpt.Spazmo]

Instead of prison as a punishment what about prison as a controlled environment, away from potential victims, wherein the perpetrator may be treated to recognise/control their urges?

While there may be a difference between those who committed crimes repeatedly between sentences and a first offender, is there a difference between the person caught on their 1st crime or the person caught on their 50th, in sentencing for rehab terms?

What if, in the case of a repeat offender, should be done? Is there a line to be drawn as in the three strikes rule?

If someone serves their sentence and still cannot be 'trusted' not to re-offend what should be done?

 

[Pestcontrol]

The idea of punishment is that people cannot do something bad without something bad being done to them. In it's essence that's not a bad idea, see it as a motivational system to ensure that crime never pays. That's also why in the past certain sentences and executions were public: to emphasise that message.

Keeping society safe from someone who has already done their time does not do justice to that person. You have to find a balance between the interest of the former criminal (who having done his time is free of guilt and becomes an ordinary citizen again) and of society.

To raise sentences for repeated offenders thus only should happen as long as it works to prevent crime by it not happening, rather than prevent it by the offender being in prison for much longer than the actual crime warrants.

I don't know what it's like in the U.K. but for psychologically ill criminals there is a system called TBS here, where you get treatment and are prepared to reintegrate into society. But it is also possible that the doctors say you can never be safely released in society again, which effectively means you have life in prison, but you get to live in a secluded environment (the "long stay" clinic) rather than an actual prison.