Poll: Should the consequences of a crime also aim to be a detterence?
Poll Options
View poll results: Should the consequences of a crime also aim to be a detterence?
Yes, for all crimes
12 39%
For some crimes yes, but not all.
12 39%
No , i disagree with the idea of it
4 13%
Undecided
3 10%
Voters: 31.
Page 1 of 2
#1
In light of all the recent threads here about the riots, and the debates about punishments and justice and all of that, i'm going to make this thread about detterence. The idea that if the consequences of an action are unpleasent then it will make the person less likley to do the action. A few people were saying that 'punishment' as an idea is immoral anyway in regards to the law, and i can see that side of things but surely making the consquences act as a deterence is important for at least some crimes?
What do you think?

Poll up soon, undecided about this right now anyway but i'll make a poll in regards to 1 aspect of it involving crime.
#2
People are animals (the literal sense of the word) and something needs to be in place to prevent them from stealing, killing etc. Fear of punishment is the easiest (and most practical) way.

As a corollary, if you could commit a crime, (like stealing a bunch of money), and have absolutely no chance of being caught, would you?
What?! There's a clean channel on my amp?!

Quote by GoodOl'trashbag
omfg i totally forgot about that, you sir are jesus christ.
#3
God damn it. How do I post an image?
Last edited by Rising at Aug 18, 2011,
#6
The four basic pillars of sentencing in criminal justice are Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Retribution, and Incapacitation. All of those are important, and should be reflected variously based on the crime. Giving undue weight to one over the others tends to result in unfair outcomes.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#7
Quote by Ur all $h1t
The four basic pillars of sentencing in criminal justice are Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Retribution, and Incapacitation. All of those are important, and should be reflected variously based on the crime. Giving undue weight to one over the others tends to result in unfair outcomes.

I'm surprised you agree with retribution tbh.
#8
Quote by RU Experienced?
Thus far fear of punishment has done little to prevent crime. That said, I always support instilling fear in people.

Has it though? If there was no prison for instance or any kind of direct punishment by the state for a crime then things would be more bleak than they are , it would allow any kind of criminal gang to be untouchable except for by another big gang.
#9
Punishment in the judicial system, so far, has never come close to a judicial system which focuses on rehabilitation. In our current societies, yes a certain degree of punishment is needed if you ask me. The judicial system is supposed to work to rehabilitate the criminal so that they can become a productive member of society again. Part of this process involves removing the threat to society from society until they are fit to rejoin. That's as far as the punishment aspect of a judicial system should go in my opinion. The stress needs to be on giving these people the means and tools they need in order to become productive members of society and to sustain that. Not on handing down unnecessarily harsh punishments in order to 'deter' people from committing crimes. It simply doesn't work.
#10
Quote by shikkaka
People are animals (the literal sense of the word) and something needs to be in place to prevent them from stealing, killing etc. Fear of punishment is the easiest (and most practical) way.

As a corollary, if you could commit a crime, (like stealing a bunch of money), and have absolutely no chance of being caught, would you?

No.
#11
If you know anything about U.S. crime rates and the prison system within that country, then you would know that fear of punishment doesn't do sh i t.
#12
Quote by shikkaka
People are animals (the literal sense of the word) and something needs to be in place to prevent them from stealing, killing etc. Fear of punishment is the easiest (and most practical) way.

As a corollary, if you could commit a crime, (like stealing a bunch of money), and have absolutely no chance of being caught, would you?

Depends who owned the money.
#13
Quote by Zoot Allures
Has it though? If there was no prison for instance or any kind of direct punishment by the state for a crime then things would be more bleak than they are , it would allow any kind of criminal gang to be untouchable except for by another big gang.


Congrats. You have just described somalia, anarchy, and why it is stupid.
What?! There's a clean channel on my amp?!

Quote by GoodOl'trashbag
omfg i totally forgot about that, you sir are jesus christ.
#15
Quote by Andrew C. S.
If you know anything about U.S. crime rates and the prison system within that country, then you would know that fear of punishment doesn't do sh i t.

Do you believe that crime would be at the same rate if there was no punishment at all for doing anything?
#17
Quote by Zoot Allures
I'm surprised you agree with retribution tbh.

I consider it to be the least important due to the general lack of utility, but I do think it has a role. For example one can imagine a situation in which a man has raped someone, but who it can be shown (don't worry about how) is certainly never going to do it again and that as his rape was a crime of passion there would be no deterrent effect to his incarceration. This would eliminate the other 3 more utilitarian justifications for his punishment, but it does still feel like something should be done. This is, in my opinion, because this person has exerted undue power over another in violation of their rights. I think that there is an imperative on society to neutralise that undue influence of power, at least somewhat.
A person shouldn't be able to get away with violating the rights of another simply because they are more powerful, at least not in a civilised society.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#18
I had this thought the other day, that whilst we punish people for doing bad, we also don't reward people for doing good.

Therefore, I propose a sort of 'No Crimes Bonus' Financial aid for everyone who has a clean criminal record. If you get caught commiting a crime you lose it, much like you'd lose your bonus on your car insurance if you had a crash. Therefore, people will be deterred from committing crime for fear that they'll lose money. Problem solved.

Am I a genius or what?
#19
Quote by Zoot Allures
Has it though? If there was no prison for instance or any kind of direct punishment by the state for a crime then things would be more bleak than they are , it would allow any kind of criminal gang to be untouchable except for by another big gang.

Who said anything about having no prisons? Handing down harsher sentences for crimes undeserving of them in order to deter people doesn't work and should not be practiced.
#20
Quote by shikkaka
People are animals (the literal sense of the word) and something needs to be in place to prevent them from stealing, killing etc. Fear of punishment is the easiest (and most practical) way.

As a corollary, if you could commit a crime, (like stealing a bunch of money), and have absolutely no chance of being caught, would you?


Tbh stealing things that people don't depend on isn't much of an unethical choice imo, since it's just material.
#21
Quote by Thrashtastic15
Not on handing down unnecessarily harsh punishments in order to 'deter' people from committing crimes. It simply doesn't work.

I don't think that the punishments should be unnecessarily harsh, but I do think that, at least for some crimes, there is a place for a deterrent. For example in white collar crimes of opportunity where the person is not really in need of a while lot of rehabilitation. They know that what they did was wrong, that's not the problem, the fact was that they decided that the risks of doing it were less than the benefit that could be accrued. Deterrence does have an effect here because it influenced that cost/benefit analysis that takes place in crimes of property.
Unfortunately deterrence is too often applied instead to crimes of passion like murder, where it has pretty much zero effect given that the person doesn't consider anything like that.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#22
Quote by Zoot Allures
Depends who owned the money.

Yeah, I guess some people are less deserving.
#23
Quote by shikkaka
Congrats. You have just described somalia, anarchy, and why it is stupid.

Read a book or something.
#24
Quote by RU Experienced?
Who said anything about having no prisons? Handing down harsher sentences for crimes undeserving of them in order to deter people doesn't work and should not be practiced.

I never said anything about increasingly harsh sentences, i'm pointing out that prison in itself is an unpleasent thing and therefore is a level of detterence in itself.
#25
BF Skinner would probably say that "deterrence" is a shitty way to control behavior.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#26
Quote by Ur all $h1t
I don't think that the punishments should be unnecessarily harsh, but I do think that, at least for some crimes, there is a place for a deterrent. For example in white collar crimes of opportunity where the person is not really in need of a while lot of rehabilitation. They know that what they did was wrong, that's not the problem, the fact was that they decided that the risks of doing it were less than the benefit that could be accrued. Deterrence does have an effect here because it influenced that cost/benefit analysis that takes place in crimes of property.
Unfortunately deterrence is too often applied instead to crimes of passion like murder, where it has pretty much zero effect given that the person doesn't consider anything like that.

Depends on the murder though.
#27
Quote by Ur all $h1t
his rape was a crime of passion

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm racking my brain trying to create a scenario in which one would be so stirred emotionally that they are driven to rape someone in a blind fit of rage. It's an amusing thought.
#28
^
It's just a hypothetical scenario


Quote by Zoot Allures
Depends on the murder though.

Ya, that's why I specified crimes of passion.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#29
Quote by Zoot Allures
Do you believe that crime would be at the same rate if there was no punishment at all for doing anything?


Of course it wouldn't be at the same rate, but bringing that point up doesn't deter from the fact that what we do now (as a country) is totally inefficient in reducing crime. There must be heavy rehabilitation, instead of just "lockin' em up and throwin' away the keys".
#30
I don't smoke pot any more because I don't want to get kicked out of grad school and ruin my entire life.

Works for me.
The lake was silent for some time. Finally it said:
"I weep for Narcissus, but I never noticed that Narcissus was beautiful. I weep because, each time he knelt beside my banks, I could see, in the depths of his eyes, my own beauty reflected."
#31
Quote by Ur all $h1t
I don't think that the punishments should be unnecessarily harsh, but I do think that, at least for some crimes, there is a place for a deterrent. For example in white collar crimes of opportunity where the person is not really in need of a while lot of rehabilitation. They know that what they did was wrong, that's not the problem, the fact was that they decided that the risks of doing it were less than the benefit that could be accrued. Deterrence does have an effect here because it influenced that cost/benefit analysis that takes place in crimes of property.
Unfortunately deterrence is too often applied instead to crimes of passion like murder, where it has pretty much zero effect given that the person doesn't consider anything like that.

Very good point, I completely agree with you. I probably failed to properly articulate my beliefs.

In our current societies I would be inclined to agree. My issue is, more than anything, putting a focus on punishment with the rationale that it is a deterrent. I believe that, as of right now, punishment is certainly a necessary piece of the puzzle, I just believe that we should really take a second look going forwards about how necessary it is. Rehabilitation should still be, by far, the main focus in my mind. Of course, how important each aspect is changes as society changes.
#32
Quote by Zoot Allures
I never said anything about increasingly harsh sentences, i'm pointing out that prison in itself is an unpleasent thing and therefore is a level of detterence in itself.

So you were pointing out how being locked in a jail cell is an unpleasant thing? I had not considered that before.
#33
Quote by Thrashtastic15
Very good point, I completely agree with you. I probably failed to properly articulate my beliefs.

In our current societies I would be inclined to agree. My issue is, more than anything, putting a focus on punishment with the rationale that it is a deterrent. I believe that, as of right now, punishment is certainly a necessary piece of the puzzle, I just believe that we should really take a second look going forwards about how necessary it is. Rehabilitation should still be, by far, the main focus in my mind. Of course, how important each aspect is changes as society changes.

Absolutely.
I like the way that Norway handles its criminal justice system. Great focus on rehabilitation.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#34
Quote by PeZ546
I had this thought the other day, that whilst we punish people for doing bad, we also don't reward people for doing good.

Therefore, I propose a sort of 'No Crimes Bonus' Financial aid for everyone who has a clean criminal record. If you get caught commiting a crime you lose it, much like you'd lose your bonus on your car insurance if you had a crash. Therefore, people will be deterred from committing crime for fear that they'll lose money. Problem solved.

Am I a genius or what?


Uhhh... kinda. The problem with what you said (I am respectfully disagreeing) is that it would teach people to chase money, and we don't need any more of that in society. Also, when you take something away from people, such as the "No Crimes Bonus", it gives them the incentive to steal, thus committing a crime and rendering your system pointless.

This is a very interesting thread btw, haven't seen a whole lot of flaming.
#35
Quote by CrunchyRoll
I don't smoke pot any more because I don't want to get kicked out of grad school and ruin my entire life.

Works for me.


Cool story, bro.
#37
if only i knew what detterence means
Music is a universal language and it need not be translated, with it soul speaks to soul.
#40
I feel like deterrence comes naturally with punishment, which the main focus should be on rehabilitation. But in the event of that being wrong, yes, I feel deterrence is important in at least some fashion.
Page 1 of 2