Two New York cops shot dead, execution style

[Tempest]

What exactly is your argument? Do you think harsher prison sentences reduce crime?

The problem with your idea that criminals choose to commit crime is that it assumes the criminal thinks about their actions before they commit them. If they think about their actions, they think about the consequences. If that is the case and a crime is punishable by incarceration, then a logical person would not commit a crime. You're talking about the Rational Choice Theory that suggests that people weigh the pros and cons of their choices. The theory falls short when dealing with criminality because its vision is too narrow. There are many more factors at play when a crime is committed than just the pros and cons of the choice. Rational Choice Theory makes one very large assumption: that a person committing a crime is thinking rationally. As rational as you or I. It's a very large brush to paint all criminals with.

Since you asked for data, here:

http://crime.about.com/od/prison/a/harsh_punishment.htm

http://criminology.utoronto.ca/wp-c.../DWG-GeneralDeterrenceHighlights14Feb2013.pdf

http://justspeak.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Does-imprisonment-deter-crime.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025245.htm

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pnshnt-rcdvsm/index-eng.aspx

http://www.sagepub.com/tibbetts/study/articles/SectionII/De Haan_Vos.pdf

Keep in mind that I'm talking about street crime and not "suite crime" (white collar crime). That is a totally different beast.

I spent 4 years learning about criminality. You clearly don't like the idea of rehabilitation, but the current system in the US does not reduce prison populations. It increases it.

I'm not looking for data on harsh punishments vs. softer punishments. I'm looking for some supportive information that criminals involved in things like shoplifting, pick-pocketing, burglary, drug use, etc., are not able to understand the difference between right and wrong.

I understand that it's good to help some people out. There are people who, if they receive help, will never offend again. I get that.

But I do think that in order for that to work, prison sentences have to be longer.

And we need to choose some crimes that won't result in jail time, to reduce the populations...and we need to revisit which crimes deserve harsher penalties. There is no reason for a rapist to get out of a ten year sentence after only three years because of good behavior. Nor is there a reason to only sentence someone to three years in prison for raping two children.

Manslaughter and murder should require harsher penalties and mandatory counseling before being released.

But I don't believe that even 'street criminals' are incapable of knowing right from wrong.

 

[Tempest]

Also, I want to add that prison time isn't meant to deter crime. It's meant to be a punishment. You know, like how you would get grounded for not doing homework or something? When you violate someone else's rights, or harm them, I think it's fair that people get punished for that. Call me old-fashioned or something, but seriously, what's with this idea that prison is unfair?

 

[Feenix]

Also, I want to add that prison time isn't meant to deter crime. It's meant to be a punishment. You know, like how you would get grounded for not doing homework or something? When you violate someone else's rights, or harm them, I think it's fair that people get punished for that. Call me old-fashioned or something, but seriously, what's with this idea that prison is unfair?

Getting grounded for not doing your homework is supposed to deter you from procrastinating in the future. So yes, it is meant to deter. You get punished so that you won't commit a crime again. This is what I meant when I said the system is too individualistic. All people care about is personal justice and to hell with the person that gets victimized from a repeat offender. The prison system creates violent criminals and repeat offenders more than it punishes. I'm not saying to do away with prisons, I'm saying the criminal justice system needs a major overhaul. I never said prison is unfair.

As for criminals not knowing right from wrong, I never said that they didn't. I'm pointing out that right and wrong are not the only factors that play into a choice to commit a crime. Socio economic status, race, mental clarity, addiction, etc all play a part.

The last link that I posted talks about the Rational Choice Theory and its shortfalls.

 

[The Question]

Also, I want to add that prison time isn't meant to deter crime. It's meant to be a punishment. You know, like how you would get grounded for not doing homework or something? When you violate someone else's rights, or harm them, I think it's fair that people get punished for that. Call me old-fashioned or something, but seriously, what's with this idea that prison is unfair?

What is the value of punishment if not as a form of deterrence? How does punishment have inherent value separate from its use as a tool for deterrence?

 

[The Question]

I'm not looking for data on harsh punishments vs. softer punishments. I'm looking for some supportive information that criminals involved in things like shoplifting, pick-pocketing, burglary, drug use, etc., are not able to understand the difference between right and wrong.

How is that relevant? I can't speak for anyone else, but I was never arguing that criminals are unable to understand the difference between right and wrong.

I understand that it's good to help some people out. There are people who, if they receive help, will never offend again. I get that.

But I do think that in order for that to work, prison sentences have to be longer.

Why?

And we need to choose some crimes that won't result in jail time, to reduce the populations...and we need to revisit which crimes deserve harsher penalties. There is no reason for a rapist to get out of a ten year sentence after only three years because of good behavior. Nor is there a reason to only sentence someone to three years in prison for raping two children.

Manslaughter and murder should require harsher penalties and mandatory counseling before being released.

But I don't believe that even 'street criminals' are incapable of knowing right from wrong.

I don't believe that anyone here was making that argument.

 

[Tempest]

What is the value of punishment if not as a form of deterrence? How does punishment have inherent value separate from its use as a tool for deterrence?

It's revenge. I know that's not nice, but neither is murdering, raping, beating, attempting to kill, or stealing from someone. The harm one inflicts upon another member of society is reflected in the punishment.

Punishment can act as a deterrent, of course. Most of us obey the laws not just because quite a few of the laws are reasonable, but because we want to avoid tickets, monetary fines, and really, most of us don't want to go to prison.

Easy example: I want to get something really nice for my mom for Christmas. I can't afford what I want to get her. I could try to steal it, but I really don't want to get arrested for shoplifting, because I don't want to go to prison.

How is that relevant? I can't speak for anyone else, but I was never arguing that criminals are unable to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Several people have brought up the idea that criminals act out of desperation and that they don't think in a logical manner. They don't think about whether or not their act is wrong, they just do it.

That suggested to me that people think that criminals can't tell what is right or wrong. If you meant something else, I apologize.

Why?

So some people have arrest records where they constantly get arrested, because they can't be bothered to follow basic laws. Instead of 90 days in prison for something petty, make them stay a year, and force them to go to counseling. Then make a mandatory year long parole, and make them check in every day.

If that seems ridiculous, it's not. Even if they acted out of desperation, they still screwed up. There are consequences for every action we take. If we really want to fix people, it can't just be a band-aid approach. It has to be for the long haul, or you're just tossing money away.

Of course, if we are going to do so much for the criminals, I think it's only fair that the victims receive an equal, if not greater, amount of aid.