NumptyScrub

I don't think any change in sentencing (either way) will necessarily affect the "first" offence rates. However, it will affect the re-offence rates... if we were to introduce the death penalty for any crime that involves a victim, those people would not be able to re-offend. It would mean, however, that they would do anything in their power to evade capture, since they knew that they would be killed if captured.

If car crime had the death sentence, crims would not hesitate to kill you (and your family) for your car, as what would they lose by adding murder to the list of charges?

What we need is some way of eliminating the need for criminal activity, as that *should* help eliminate the "opportunist" crim who is stealing to support family/drug habit/whatever, but there is *nothing* we can necessarily do to eliminate the career crim. These people run on their own moral system and will commit crimes regardless of sentence, the only thing you can do to minimise the impact is prevent them from re-offending.

The moral of this story? Buggered if I know... the topic is a difficult one, maybe a fairytale shangri-la where the dole is equivalent to 15-20kpa so noone need go hungry, and can afford more than just the "basics". This would necessarily cost us taxpayers a huge amount of dosh though.

And if you make american style self defence legal (ie. he was in my house so I shot him), expect anyone who breaks in to be prepared to kill in order that they can escape...

OK, I think I've managed to completely lose the plot now... I'll give up at this point.

Derek

boomer

Although speeding (as in exceeding the posted limit for your particular vehicle) is illegal, i would not call it a crime per se. My dictionary defines crime as "Act (usu. grave offence) punishable by law; evil act..." which seems rather more serious than going a few mph over the limit. If anything i would call it an "artificial crime" - one whose definition is based on some arbitrary limit that does not necessarily reflect reality. Consider, as is quite common these days, a 40mph limit being reduced to 30mph - does this mean that people who previously drove at 40mph are now retrospectively law breakers?

But back to topic - whether a crim thinks he not committing a crime is irrelevant - ignorance is no excuse in law. He (or she) is causing hurt and harm to society, and should be suitably punished (and hopefully educated as well - such as explaing where insurance payout money comes from!).

It seems crazy that a pensioner can be sent to jail for the "crime" of refusing to complete a census form; or market traders punished for daring to sell goods in their customers preferred units - when vicious thugs seem to be immune to proscecution.

Oh, and you are right - this is a good thread

Cheers,

mb

jon hill

But

and this is what i dont understand

You "defend" speeding as an "artificial crime", but do not concede that low lie scum have excatly the same opinion on car crime.

Will longer sentences change your mind ? nope

Will longer sentences change their minds ? why should the answer be different ?


ok - next point, putting the death sentence and 10 year stretches for nicking a car aside, there is a view that longer sentences mean that there is a lower reoffence rate.

I dont see the logic here

I would assume that the longer you are inside the more likely you are to become a hardened criminal. Is that fair ? Someone in for two weeks is more likely to get on with their life than someone in for 4 years.

So, 5 guys go to jail for two weeks, they come out and 2 recommit

5 guys go to jail for 4 years, they come out, and I would guess that >2 would recommit

Given the lack of hard facts here, I'll give that the reoffence rate may be exactly the same; but I cant see where the assumption that it will be lower comes from.

Ok - you get a "breather" while they are put inside but that only lasts from the initial change of policy until these guys start getting released. Then you're in a worse position than where you started from.

Now where's the flaw in the logic ?

jon hill

All very well

But you are still avoiding the fundamental issue - the higher the imprisonment rate the higher the crime rate. Unfortunate though it may be, it's plainly obvious that longer term imprisonment is not a deterant.

Additionaly these folk _have_ to come out at some point; be it 2 months or 10 years. The longer they have been in jail the more hardened a criminal they will have become.

People want to hear a simple solution to this problem - "lock 'em up", "tough on crime", etc. In last 10,000 years or so a good number of solutions to crime have been attempted; but strangely enough no civilisation appears to have hit on the quick and simple fix.

Perhaps its time to accept that there isnt one and it is in fact a very complex and difficult issue.

--
edited coz i cant spell


[Edited by jon hill - 3/7/2002 9:08:40 AM]