Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Increasing the punishment for crime

Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:14:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think we are to soft on crime and could benefit from increasing the punishments for people that commit crimes.

I am not sure why we are so tolerant of crime. For starters people that commit violent crimes should be put to death. I am not talking about a common fist fight between people. I am talking about premeditated attempt to cause serious harm. Drug punishment should also be alot steeper, as we all know drugs are the main cause of most crime.

Not only will this clean up the streets, we will reduce prison costs.

To sum up, I think we are way to soft on criminals. I think there is no place for them in society.

Am I off base here?
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:16:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:14:29 AM, Bachatero wrote:
I think we are to soft on crime and could benefit from increasing the punishments for people that commit crimes.

I am not sure why we are so tolerant of crime. For starters people that commit violent crimes should be put to death. I am not talking about a common fist fight between people. I am talking about premeditated attempt to cause serious harm. Drug punishment should also be alot steeper, as we all know drugs are the main cause of most crime.

Not only will this clean up the streets, we will reduce prison costs.

To sum up, I think we are way to soft on criminals. I think there is no place for them in society.

Am I off base here?
Except for the drug punishment part, you are perfectly on-base. I think violent offenders and pedophiles that have DNA evidence against them should be put to death.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:21:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well drugs are the main cause / root of crime. We would have to crack down on that if you were serious about reducing crime.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:22:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why should they be killed? How is that any better than murder?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:23:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:21:51 AM, Bachatero wrote:
Well drugs are the main cause / root of crime. We would have to crack down on that if you were serious about reducing crime.

Or we could decriminalize the safe ones?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:25:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:22:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Why should they be killed? How is that any better than murder?

They violated social contract, so they basically relinquished their right to social contract protections. That is the only objective reason that murder is "wrong" so it is fine to kill them.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:25:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:22:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Why should they be killed? How is that any better than murder?

Its called "punishment" / zero tolerance.

When you murder someone you are committing a crime. Capital Punishment is not a crime.

Thats like saying putting someone in prison and holding them is kidnapping.
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:26:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:23:40 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
Or we could decriminalize the safe ones?

Thats a whole other debate. I am speaking of what is illegal.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:28:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:26:47 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:23:40 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
Or we could decriminalize the safe ones?

Thats a whole other debate. I am speaking of what is illegal.

Pot is safe and illegal. Many steroids are safe but illegal, I don't see your point.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:34:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:28:11 AM, tmar19652 wrote:

Pot is safe and illegal. Many steroids are safe but illegal, I don't see your point.

My point is, the issue of what drugs should be legal is a whole other topic / debate all together.

As of now, what is a crime is a crime. You want to reduce crime, then increase the penalties.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:37:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:34:25 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:28:11 AM, tmar19652 wrote:

Pot is safe and illegal. Many steroids are safe but illegal, I don't see your point.

My point is, the issue of what drugs should be legal is a whole other topic / debate all together.

As of now, what is a crime is a crime. You want to reduce crime, then increase the penalties.

That tactic rarely, if ever works.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:39:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:37:11 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
That tactic rarely, if ever works.

When has a country imposed EXTREME punishments on drugs and if so what was the stats / after affect.

I dont know about you, but I wouldnt be caught dead with a drug on me if I knew I would be put in prison for life.

I wouldnt ever get into a car and drive after a night out drinking if I knew I could get the death penalty or life in prison.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:44:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:39:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:37:11 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
That tactic rarely, if ever works.

When has a country imposed EXTREME punishments on drugs and if so what was the stats / after affect.

I dont know about you, but I wouldnt be caught dead with a drug on me if I knew I would be put in prison for life.

I wouldnt ever get into a car and drive after a night out drinking if I knew I could get the death penalty or life in prison.

Those are extreme punishments for relatively minor crimes.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:45:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:25:01 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:22:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Why should they be killed? How is that any better than murder?

They violated social contract, so they basically relinquished their right to social contract protections.

Whilst in the act of murder, it would not be an act of aggression to stop the murderer. The murderer, by currently posing a threat, forfeits his rights to protect the rights of the person he is murdering. In the case of capital punishment, in which the murderer would be completely under the legal system's control and would not pose a threat to anyone, how can you justify using force to punish them? When you kill that person, you are not protecting anyone's rights.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:46:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:25:41 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:22:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Why should they be killed? How is that any better than murder?

Its called "punishment" / zero tolerance.
An abstract sense of "justice" is useless and barbaric. There is no point in it.

When you murder someone you are committing a crime. Capital Punishment is not a crime.
You are depriving someone of life against their will when they are not an immediate threat . That is murder.

Thats like saying putting someone in prison and holding them is kidnapping.

The only valid purpose of prisons are to stop criminals from causing harm. Using prisons to punish people amounts to kidnapping.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:47:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:45:37 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:25:01 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:22:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Why should they be killed? How is that any better than murder?

They violated social contract, so they basically relinquished their right to social contract protections.

Whilst in the act of murder, it would not be an act of aggression to stop the murderer. The murderer, by currently posing a threat, forfeits his rights to protect the rights of the person he is murdering. In the case of capital punishment, in which the murderer would be completely under the legal system's control and would not pose a threat to anyone, how can you justify using force to punish them? When you kill that person, you are not protecting anyone's rights.

Would it not be using force to keep them in prison too?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:47:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:44:43 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:39:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:37:11 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
That tactic rarely, if ever works.

When has a country imposed EXTREME punishments on drugs and if so what was the stats / after affect.

I dont know about you, but I wouldnt be caught dead with a drug on me if I knew I would be put in prison for life.

I wouldnt ever get into a car and drive after a night out drinking if I knew I could get the death penalty or life in prison.

Those are extreme punishments for relatively minor crimes.

And, as a result, are an absurd abuse of the powers of the State.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:48:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:44:43 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
Those are extreme punishments for relatively minor crimes.

Thats the point.

Zero Tolerance for crime.

I / We do things because we are not scared of the punishment. I drink and drive regularly. (not hammered, but prob over the limit). I do this because I am not concerned with the punishment. If getting caught meant death or life I would NEVER drive after having a drink.

Crime should have no place in society and people should no this.

Extreme punishments will reduce crime.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:50:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:47:47 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:45:37 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:25:01 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:22:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Why should they be killed? How is that any better than murder?

They violated social contract, so they basically relinquished their right to social contract protections.

Whilst in the act of murder, it would not be an act of aggression to stop the murderer. The murderer, by currently posing a threat, forfeits his rights to protect the rights of the person he is murdering. In the case of capital punishment, in which the murderer would be completely under the legal system's control and would not pose a threat to anyone, how can you justify using force to punish them? When you kill that person, you are not protecting anyone's rights.

Would it not be using force to keep them in prison too?

Yes, but it would be with the purpose of rehabilitation and protection of civilians, not punishment. I do not support life sentences.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:51:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:48:41 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:44:43 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
Those are extreme punishments for relatively minor crimes.

Thats the point.

Zero Tolerance for crime.

I / We do things because we are not scared of the punishment. I drink and drive regularly. (not hammered, but prob over the limit). I do this because I am not concerned with the punishment. If getting caught meant death or life I would NEVER drive after having a drink.

Crime should have no place in society and people should no this.

Extreme punishments will reduce crime.
Have you ever gotten a traffic ticket, because if you have, under your system, you would be put to death. And don't let your parking meter run out, because that would be life in prison.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:52:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:45:37 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Whilst in the act of murder, it would not be an act of aggression to stop the murderer. The murderer, by currently posing a threat, forfeits his rights to protect the rights of the person he is murdering. In the case of capital punishment, in which the murderer would be completely under the legal system's control and would not pose a threat to anyone, how can you justify using force to punish them? When you kill that person, you are not protecting anyone's rights.

When you kill them you are promoting a zero tolerance stand against crime.

Why should tax payers money be used to house a criminal?

They knew the punishment was death, and choose to commit the crime. Their choice.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:52:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:50:26 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:47:47 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:45:37 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:25:01 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:22:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Why should they be killed? How is that any better than murder?

They violated social contract, so they basically relinquished their right to social contract protections.

Whilst in the act of murder, it would not be an act of aggression to stop the murderer. The murderer, by currently posing a threat, forfeits his rights to protect the rights of the person he is murdering. In the case of capital punishment, in which the murderer would be completely under the legal system's control and would not pose a threat to anyone, how can you justify using force to punish them? When you kill that person, you are not protecting anyone's rights.

Would it not be using force to keep them in prison too?

Yes, but it would be with the purpose of rehabilitation and protection of civilians, not punishment. I do not support life sentences.

So you would let a serial murderer and pedophile out? How do you know they will not do it again.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:55:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:51:34 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
Have you ever gotten a traffic ticket, because if you have, under your system, you would be put to death. And don't let your parking meter run out, because that would be life in prison.

I didnt actually define all my punishments. Only things that should result in death or a life sentence are violent crimes, drinking and driving, drug related crimes. I speed all the time. Why, because I know the penalties are weak so I dont care about them. If I was to get hit with a 5,000 dollar fine I sure as fug wouldnt speed.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:57:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:55:17 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:51:34 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
Have you ever gotten a traffic ticket, because if you have, under your system, you would be put to death. And don't let your parking meter run out, because that would be life in prison.

I didnt actually define all my punishments. Only things that should result in death or a life sentence are violent crimes, drinking and driving, drug related crimes. I speed all the time. Why, because I know the penalties are weak so I dont care about them. If I was to get hit with a 5,000 dollar fine I sure as fug wouldnt speed.

You said zero tolerance. A $5000 fine would allow a rich man to speed whenever. Your system would put him to death.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:58:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:52:04 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:45:37 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Whilst in the act of murder, it would not be an act of aggression to stop the murderer. The murderer, by currently posing a threat, forfeits his rights to protect the rights of the person he is murdering. In the case of capital punishment, in which the murderer would be completely under the legal system's control and would not pose a threat to anyone, how can you justify using force to punish them? When you kill that person, you are not protecting anyone's rights.

When you kill them you are promoting a zero tolerance stand against crime.
That doesn't make the fact that it's immoral any less important.
Why should tax payers money be used to house a criminal?
I'm against taxes. However, it would be in the people's best interest to fund prisons.

They knew the punishment was death, and choose to commit the crime. Their choice.

Would it be justified for me to kill you after I told you that I would kill you if you ate bread and you proceeded to eat bread?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Nimbus328
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:01:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The punishment should meet the crime.

"Research has shown that increasing the severity of a punishment does not have much effect on crime, while increasing the certainty of punishment does have a deterrent effect. "Clearly, enhancing the severity of punishment will have little impact on people who do not believe they will be apprehended for their actions.".[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:01:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:57:34 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
You said zero tolerance. A $5000 fine would allow a rich man to speed whenever. Your system would put him to death.

How about "x" months in prison. Me nor the rich guy wouldnt want that.

My system would only put to death violent criminals and large drug distributors.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:02:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only practical outcome to being "tougher" on crime is to increase the number of criminals going free.

Here is something you should realize:
1. Not all crime is reported.
2. Not all reported crime is investigated.
3. Not all investigated crime least to an arrest.
4. Not all arrests lead to charges.
5. Not all charges lead to trials.
6. Not all trials lead to convictions.
7. Not all convictions lead to incarceration.

None of the above is due to anyone involved being "soft" on crime. Everyone involved in reporting, investigating, arresting, charging, trying and incarcerating has a vested interest in doing that. The odd-ball out is convicting, as obviously we don't want our judges and juries having a vested interest (read: bias) in convicting people.

So, if these people have vested interest in doing so, why is the process so incomplete? Well, with #1, there are a variety of reasons why crime goes unreported, none of which has to do with anyone being "soft" on crime.

2-5 happens because of sheer incapability. There is too much crime for our legal system to deal with. There aren't enough policemen to thoroughly investigate all crimes, not enough jail cells to hold all criminals, and not enough prosecutors to try all arrestees. It is an issue of capability, not desire.

5 & 6 is where actually being "tougher" would hurt the criminal justice system.

5 - it is estimated that anywhere from 90% - 95% of cases are resolved through plea bargaining[1]. Being "tougher" on crime would mean less plea bargaining. But why bargain? Because it is faster and more efficient. Since we literally can't try every case, forcing the state to do so necessarily means cases being dropped or tried ineffectively. So instead of lots of guilties with lower sentence, you have people simply going free.

6 - Being tougher on crime increases the burden on the prosecution. Judges simply cannot summarily issue tough sentences. Even within statutory maximums, there are sentencing guidelines which, while not always binding, are not something that can simply be dismissed on a whim. A good review of sentencing guidelines can be found here: http://www.popehat.com...

Since judges can't simply issue tougher sentences, if you want higher punishments, you need to charge for more severe crimes. The problem with that is more severe crimes have a higher burden as they have more elements or more stringent requirements. Consider 1st Degree vs. 2nd Degree murder. It is harder to prove 1st Degree murder because you have the added burden of proving premeditation. You make the case harder to win and, therefore, increase the number of acquittals.

Another drawback to being "tougher" on crime is the fact that you can only be so tough. You cannot simply scale all punishments, you can only push them incrementally closer to the maximum punishment: death. In doing so, you reduce the differences between criminal punishments and actually decrease the incentive for people NOT to commit more serious crimes.

If a person risks a long prison term, life, or death, no matter what they do, then they have no incentive to limit themselves in their criminal activity. If I'm planning to rob a bank, I will probably want to try and do it without using a gun and minimizing risk of people dying, as I know that will drastically increase the punishment if I get caught. But if you increase the punishment for robbing a bank such that it isn't significantly different than doing it while using a gun or having killed someone while performing it, then you are actually putting people at risk because there really isn't any reason for me to care about whether or not people die while I try and rob the bank.

Simply saying "be tougher on crime" demonstrates an incomplete thought processes that hasn't considered why we treat crime the way we do, why people commit crimes, and what the consequences of forcing people to be tough on crime would be.

[1] https://www.bja.gov...
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:03:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:58:04 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
That doesn't make the fact that it's immoral any less important.

Not immoral.

I'm against taxes. However, it would be in the people's best interest to fund prisons.


Why would it be in the best interest to house criminals? Much cheaper and better to just kill them.

Would it be justified for me to kill you after I told you that I would kill you if you ate bread and you proceeded to eat bread?:

You have no authority over me, additionally eating bread is not a crime. Bad example.
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:06:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 9:01:24 AM, Nimbus328 wrote:
The punishment should meet the crime.

"Research has shown that increasing the severity of a punishment does not have much effect on crime, while increasing the certainty of punishment does have a deterrent effect. "Clearly, enhancing the severity of punishment will have little impact on people who do not believe they will be apprehended for their actions.".[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I dont think there is any reference to use, as what I am proposing is EXTREME and I doubt it has been done before, certainly not in recent times.

I already gave numerous examples of how punishment would certainly affect me. Drinking and driving being one example.