Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are punishment for crimes so lame? Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    now that we have escaped the namby pamby EU we can punish malefactors properly.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    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!
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Well they are doing a bad job!
    Except they aren't, because the countries that do what criminologists say they should do have significantly lower crime rates.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Even these reports have "grey areas" because the fact remains if punishments were more severe, more people would be deterred from some crimes at least.

    The only way to control people is to scare them.. if people are scared to do something, it makes them think twice, at least or even stop them altogether. This is simple common sense.

    I am not saying it would stop all crimes, I am saying it would reduce it. Wouldn't it be great to reduce most crime
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    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?
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Thank you.. this is a good response that I agree with.

    So.... is Blair guilty?
    Is Blair guilty of what?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Except they aren't, because the countries that do what criminologists say they should do have significantly lower crime rates.
    And which country in particular is this, or are these?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    Is Blair guilty of what?
    Ordering the sending of soldiers into Iraq and getting them killed?
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Ordering the sending of soldiers into Iraq and getting them killed?
    I'm sorry, how is this relevant to the point at issue?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    I'm sorry, how is this relevant to the point at issue?
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    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!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    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!
    I meant the financial cost of keeping them locked up.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I meant the financial cost of keeping them locked up.
    The financial cost of keeping them locked up should not even have been an issue, if the crime has been avoided in the 1st place. The victim has already had their life ruined or affected.. but I get your point, sorry for misinterpretation!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    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.
    it's another topic for another day then
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    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!
    You're choosing to form your opinions with emotions rather than the cold hard evidence.

    The cold hard evidence tells us that deterrence doesn't work. So to say "people would be too scared to commit any crime" is to make an assertion, to make an assertion without evidence.

    Your challenge to the point that "rehabilitation works... punishment does not", is to not actually challenge the point. You've not proven that punishment works and rehabilitation does not.

    If a prisoner is put in prison, is punished, then comes out more likely to re-offend than if they were rehabilitated (as the evidence shows), then your choice, your emotion, has created that situation. How do you deal with that? The more you punish, the more crime you create. If you advocate that system, you're responsible for the victims you create.

    So once someone has committed a crime, what's better? Because you can't change the past. Is it better that you feel great because that criminal is punished severely, but more people suffer in the end. Or is it better that you work on that person never committing a crime ever again?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    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?
    The burden of proof for criminal trials is 'beyond reasonable doubt', are you proposing a seperate, higher, burden of proof? If so, how do you define 100% certainty? Could a defendent attempt to use philosophical scepticism as a means of avoiding this higher burden?
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    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?
    Severe punishment is not nessarily the best form of deterrance. Compare the UK to Norway for instance, the sentences in Norway are far more lenient and yet it has a far lower rate of recidivism.

    (Original post by the bear)
    now that we have escaped the namby pamby EU we can punish malefactors properly.
    The ECHR might want a word...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    population of Norway.. approx 5 million people.. BUT you have changed my mind because when checking WHY Norway did well I stumbled (like you) across this article:

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-no...essful-2014-12

    I have to say it opened my eyes!! It isn't always the people that are the problem, it is the conditions we live in?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-s...th-korea-crime

    Interesting though.. South Korea last in this list.. http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

    "As long as you respect and celebrate that pride, as you should when sharing space with them in their home country, the chances of you running into any sort of crime-related problem are slim to none."

    "Be aware that if you commit a serious enough crime, you may be liable for the death penalty, even though you are not a citizen."

    Thoughts?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.