I'd agree that the poorest have the highest crime rate, but I also think there are two distinctive types of criminals in the poorer communities...there's the father who steal's from the grocery store to feed his family...then there's the guy that rob's a gas station to support his drug habit...both are criminal acts and punishable by law (especially if a weapon was used while commiting the crime)...one criminal is a job away from being an respectable citizen again, the other has a whole slew of issues going on, especially if someone is killed during the act...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:02:55 AM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... To be honest, the idea seems fascist more than anything to me. The first association I got was Orwells 1984 with its "crimethink", "unpersons", "newspeak"... ect.
Honestly, I dont know shit about genes, but I doubt that it really comes to that. I think it has more to do with the circumstances we live in, the upbringing we get, and not the least the social status that we have. I dont think that its a coincidence that the poorest areas are usualy the most criminal ones. That was what I was refering to. Studying the conditions in which criminals "develop", and trying to do something about that.
Basicly, we are all brought up to certain moral norms. Dont kill is probably the most important one, and the fact that most of us have those norms kind of in our subconscience is, imo, the biggest detterent. You dont kill - why? Because you just dont. And if you would really want (or have) to kill someone, I doubt that the threat of punishment would stop you. Or me, or anyone for that matter.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | I'm not much of a Tom Cruise fan myself, but you bring up an interesting idea, here is an overview of the movie...it's one you might like...
Minority Report is a 2002 science fiction film directed by Steven Spielberg and loosely based on the short story "The Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick. It is set primarily in Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia in the year 2054, where "Precrime", a specialized police department, apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge provided by three psychics called "precogs". The cast includes Tom Cruise as Precrime officer John Anderton, Colin Farrell as Department of Justice agent Danny Witwer, Samantha Morton as the senior precog Agatha, and Max von Sydow as Anderton's superior Lamar Burgess. The film has a distinctive look, featuring desaturated colors that make it almost resemble a black-and-white film, yet the blacks and shadows have a high contrast, resembling film noir.
Now, of course this is just a movie...but what if medical research discovered a gene that showed anyone born with this particular gene would become a violent criminal...how could, and more importantly, would society use this information to weed out the bad apples before the crime(s) were commited?? Maybe studying convicted violent criminals in the world of medical research isn't such a bad idea after all!!!! 
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Nope. Havent seen it. Top Gun - the only Tom Cruise movie that I liked. I dont really like the guy generaly.
As for my post - well, what I wanted to say is that we would probably be more succesfull if we try to stop crime than punish it. Prevention, kinda like in medicine. Better to get a shot against a disease, then to get infected. Trying to figure out (Im sure that part at least wouldnt be hard) why criminals commit crimes, and try to do something about that. But, I guess that that is a bit much to expect. Then again, if we could crawl out of the medieval torture chambers, I guess we may someday come to that.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Have you seen the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise?? That's what came to mind reading the end of your post...if we could do that, there would be no crime...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
