Amazon.com Widgets

Should punishment be greater than the crime committed?

Asked by: Smithereens
  • Compensation, Justice, punishment.

    A criminal that is being punished for a crime is usually being enacted with an equivalent exchange. However, this does not factor in that the victim did not want to be the target of the crime, the punishment must be equal, plus a little extra for inflicting their crime on the other party.

  • An act of bravery, a story of misery.

    The punishment must be greater than the crime done. The crime not only affects the victim, but also the victim's family. The punishment should never be less than the crime created so that the same crime will not be repeated by anybody else under any circumstance. This will teach the right lesson for all such conspirators. Rules must be rigid.

  • An act of bravery, a story of misery.

    The punishment must be greater than the crime done. The crime not only affects the victim, but also the victim's family. The punishment should never be less than the crime created so that the same crime will not be repeated by anybody else under any circumstance. This will teach the right lesson for all such conspirators. Rules must be rigid.

  • An act of bravery, a story of misery.

    The punishment must be greater than the crime done. The crime not only affects the victim, but also the victim's family. The punishment should never be less than the crime created so that the same crime will not be repeated by anybody else under any circumstance. This will teach the right lesson for all such conspirators. Rules must be rigid.

  • If you know your punishment is that bad would you do it in the first place?

    Yes the punishment for a crime committed should be extremely harsh. If you know that your punishment is that bad it may prevent you from doing it in the first place. One would think if w they are about to do is really worth such a harsh punishment. Other countries punish you severely for talking about their government, we should adopt that we punish sever for regular crimes committed.

  • You Know What You Are Getting In Too

    If we had a system where committing any crime made you eligible for a harsh and universal punishment people wouldn't commit those small crimes. I know what is expected of me as a citizen and they should too. Stabbing or shooting somebody during a robbery isn't a crime that gets you second chance and should have just one punishment so everyone knows what they are signing up for.

  • Punishment is outdated at times.

    Instead of going eye for an eye, perhaps we should be focusing on rehabilitating criminals. Many prisons have work programs in place to allow prisoners to learn a trade, that way when they re-enter society, they have a means other than crime to support themselves. We've been punishing criminals for the last 100,000 years, it hasn't stopped crime and it probably never will.

  • Punishments should not exceed the crime.

    Punishment should never be greater than the crime committed. Some criminals do not even do something that terrible, but can end up in prison for 10 plus years. That does not seem just or fair to me. The punishment should be focused on making them repent for their crimes, and get help to not feel the need to do those crimes any longer.

  • This is the wrong question, punishment should be about the good of society rather than abstract notions of what the perpetrator "deserves"

    Punishment should be based on what's good for society as a whole in the long term. If being more lenient than is deserved does that in one set of circumstances then we should do that. If being harsher than is deserved does that in another set of circumstances then we should do that instead.

    By and large I think the former is more often the case (not always, sometimes judges are stupidly lenient). Right now we often punish people harshly in ways that don't benefit society as a whole, but instead create hardened criminals and unnecessarily drain productive resources from the economy.

    We should not punish ourselves just for the sake of punishing criminals. For instance, in this day and age of surveillance technology prison in the modern sense is a huge waste of taxpayer money. We could easily limit people's movements using technology. Then people can keep working (which is better for the economy), while being carefully monitored, and we could even expand privileges depending on behavior and signs of rehabilitation. In rare cases rehabilitation and/or public protection may be best served by confining people to one location at all times, but even then we could get rid of the guard towers and just have a bracelet or a microchip tell us if they leave the area. We could even use an invisible fence like the kind people use for pets that delivers a painful but harmless shock, which would then only require a small staff of guards to intervene. We could even just have the police respond to those cases as they occur rather than needing a full-time guard staff dedicated to inmates, since attempted escapes would become almost unheard of.

  • Eye for an eye.

    Punishments should be equivalent to the crimes committed. If someone murders another person, I believe they should have to face the same as what was imposed on the victim. There are many times when murderers torture their victims and yet our death penalty gives them a painless death. I do not think that they deserve such treatment because they did not care if their victims were in pain.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.