Why are punishment for crimes so lame?

Every reaction is caused by an action.. the only crime that is not premeditated would be to, beat somebody up because they made you mad or worse kill them. Otherwise it could be accidental death.. but depending on the action took, ie car speeding, would depend on the punishment.

If a person is capable of murder or even to hit another person out of anger, then they need to be removed from society or even from the planet! "ohh i lost my temper" is not an excuse! Maybe people will learn more self control under these conditions hey?!



Not expecting to get caught.. is why we to increase the punishment to a point that even in this scenario it would be a deterrent! Also why we need more measures in place to catch criminals in many more places! ie CCTV or Google Glass type technology of the future.. in that it is a permanent, always recording, always connected to a cloud, microchip device?! We are not too far away from this personal safety device surely!! Hell, even Glass as been banned by Privacy laws.. SAFETY first I say!

We need big changes, because it does not work or even come close to working!! It's that simple!

Well they are doing a bad job!

Because there's an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that that's almost never the case. That's why there's an entire field dedicated to studying it.

http://orientation.uchicagolawandecon.org/readings/Do%20Harsher%20Prison%20Conditions.pdf
http://www.castanet.net/news/Law-Matters/68717/Do-severe-punishments-deter-crime
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/91/3_suppl/48S.short
http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/02/01/aler.ahq024.short
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-5652-3_3#page-1
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147698?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I think we agree on the definition of an unpremeditated crime. However, I would argue that if an action is genuinely not chosen then they could not have acted otherwise and therefore are not blameworthy so should not be punished. I'm not arguing that they should not be removed from society, to protect both themselves and us. However, this shouldn't mean "removing them from the planet". They need to be put in a mental institute or similar.

As for expecting not to get caught. Technology is not yet at the point where we can catch every criminal in the act of committing a crime. If it were, having more severe punishments would be a better deterrent. However, as I said, the majority of criminals do not believe they will be caught. If you genuinely don't believe that you are likely to be caught, you will not consider the severity of the punishment.

For example, you could institute capital punishment as a punishment for nose picking. If someone is alone in a locked and darkened room, absolutely certain that there are no cameras, it probably won't deter them from picking their nose. That is the psychology most criminals have. And that is why countries with the death penalty often have higher murder rates than countries without.

Thank you.. this is a good response that I agree with.

So.... is Blair guilty?

Except they aren't, because the countries that do what criminologists say they should do have significantly lower crime rates.

Is Blair guilty of what?

Ordering the sending of soldiers into Iraq and getting them killed?

I'm sorry, how is this relevant to the point at issue?

I'd give rehabilitation every chance.

IMO constant repeat offenders who there's no hope for should get hard labour to help pay for the cost of their imprisonment.

There'd be no ****in Sky TV in the place if I was running a prison that's for sure.

There is no "cost" to ruining or ending somebody's life.. the victims will ALWAYS be effected in some cases. It should not have happened in the 1st place!

Things are getting worse.. i am just watching the news and a 70 year old man has been knocked black and blue because he asked somebody to stop peeing on his wall!!! It is mindless violence... that will never, ever be justified!

It isn't directly.. but would he have made the decision if he knew the consequences of his actions? OR if he knew he would be punished if caught, like he has been now. Just because he is a politician, he should not be treated differently to anybody else. Anyway, yes ignore this comment, it was more a tongue in cheek comment with little relevance.

I meant the financial cost of keeping them locked up.

Ok... I think we're just going to end up going round in circles here so perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this.

Well, let's just keep going the way we are and letting criminals off with little punishment.. and the victims affected for life then?

BIG changes are needed.. and if I was to become PM, many people would be too scared to commit any crime! Thus problem solved!

The comments regarding rehabilitation works.. punishment does not... Are you serious??? So it's ok for a victim of a crime to suffer possibly all their life (or lack of it) as long as the criminal doesn't do it again?! Such a silly argument!

It wouldn't be difficult in this day and age with the technology we now have to catch and convict somebody of a crime to a 100% certainty. CCTV footage or DNA results, for examples. IF a person is 100% convicted of a crime and there was no chance of this person being framed or mis-identified and depending on the crime, why shouldn't punishment be much more severe?

With people caught committing crimes on CCTV and it is 100% conclusive evidence.. and a conviction is made, then these criminals should be punished very severely. Armed robbery or even a mugging on the street are both life changing events for the victims.. and therefor the criminals should have their hands cut off or worse! It would deter others from doing it I am sure!! I know it's not easy but I feel a LOT more could be done to deter criminals.. and it makes me wonder why it isn't?

now that we have escaped the namby pamby EU we can punish malefactors properly.

It wouldn't be difficult in this day and age with the technology we now have to catch and convict somebody of a crime to a 100% certainty. CCTV footage or DNA results, for examples.

IF a person is 100% convicted of a crime and there was no chance of this person being framed or mis-identified and depending on the crime, why shouldn't punishment be much more severe?

I do understand that it isn't always possible to convict somebody to 100% certainty.. i.e rape cases where even though dna testing is accurate and semen found, it still might have been consensual sex at the time! This poses a huge problem of course!

With people caught committing crimes on CCTV and it is 100% conclusive evidence.. and a conviction is made, then these criminals should be punished very severely. Armed robbery or even a mugging on the street are both life changing events for the victims.. and therefor the criminals should have their hands cut off or worse! It would deter others from doing it I am sure!!

I know it's not easy but I feel a LOT more could be done to deter criminals.. and it makes me wonder why it isn't?