babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » punishing criminals

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: punishing criminals
bakunin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3991

posted 26 June 2003 11:37 PM      Profile for bakunin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
what do people think the effect(on violent crime rates) would be if violent offenders were put in
stocks like this and were placed in public places for varying amounts of time as sentences?

From: we may not convince you but we'll convince your children | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 26 June 2003 11:40 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not a bad idea. I wonder if that qualifies as "cruel and unsual" though...
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 June 2003 11:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, because I'm sure the time they spend in those things won't be filled with thoughts of revenge and anger. No, they'll convert to thinking of sunshine and puppy dogs all day long after a few stints in one of those things.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 26 June 2003 11:53 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Humiliating people is not the way to go.
They probably already feel shitty about themselves.

From: Canton Marchand, Qubec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 June 2003 11:56 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The whole point of punishing someone is to correct their behavior. You don't accomplish this by stuffing them in the stocks like that.

You must, of course, show that actions have consequences, but you also have to transform the criminal so that he or she no longer commits crimes. This would require a much heftier investment in serious prison system reform and a rethinking of the whole philosophy of crime control and justice.

However, I would of course reserve the pedophiles, who have an abominably poor cure rate, for being locked up somewhere on Ellesmere Island.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
scrabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2883

posted 27 June 2003 02:26 AM      Profile for scrabble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Paging Claire Culhane!
From: dappled shade in the forest | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
bakunin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3991

posted 27 June 2003 04:04 AM      Profile for bakunin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
would it not be true democracy in action though? punishment as decided by ones peers? people could just as easily come and try to rehabilitate the criminal while they are in the stocks for a minor offence. i'm sure lots would. at the same time some rapist/murderer would probably get beaten and eventually killed. also serves as a good public lesson and certainly disuades people from recommitting certain types of crime.
From: we may not convince you but we'll convince your children | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 27 June 2003 08:39 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't use such a thing for criminal punishment.

I am, however, interested in procureing the blueprints.


I think restitution has to be emphasized in sentencing, as does rehabilitation. But there are some crimes where restitution is impossible, and rehabilitation untenable.


I don't think public humiliation serves anyone's interest, except masochists, and the truly sadistic.

Do you really thing such a thing would be used for 'white collar' crimes?

Just another device in the class war against the working class and poor.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 June 2003 10:31 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
would it not be true democracy in action though? punishment as decided by ones peers?

There would always be at least a few people who'd come by to lay a beating, regardless of the crime. For that reason, it wouldn't really be democracy.

If, on the other hand, a community had to come to a consensus, by vote, as to what to do with the criminal in their stocks, then you might have the seed of democracy sprouting.

While I'm not actually recommending it, it certainly would make a fascinating alternative to the present justice system. Insofar as the poor outnumber the rich, perhaps white collar criminals would end up getting the beating that so many want to see them get. Maybe the masses would feel that child killers, wife beaters, animal torturers, etc., were finally getting justice. Crime affects communities, but when do communities as a whole get a say? This might at least give them that.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 27 June 2003 12:31 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
at the same time some rapist/murderer would probably get beaten and eventually killed. also serves as a good public lesson and certainly disuades people from recommitting certain types of crime.

Do you support police brutality too bakunin? Because if it's okay with you to put criminals in stocks and have Joe Q Public come up and lay a beating on them, then why can't the cops get in a few good shots when they're arresting the guy in the first place? Might dissuade him from recommitting certain types of crimes.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 June 2003 12:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
then why can't the cops get in a few good shots when they're arresting the guy in the first place?

Wouldn't that be before a trial?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 June 2003 12:47 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
at the same time some rapist/murderer would probably get beaten and eventually killed

And then wouldn't those perpetrators find themselves in your stocks as a murderer? Or in your world is it permissible to beat and kill defenseless, even if bad, people?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 27 June 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are two parts to a trial. One is to determine guilt or innocence, and the second is to determine the sentence if the accused is found guilty. But if you're going to put them in stocks and let the neighbors decide if he just stews for a few hours or if he gets rocks thrown at his head, then I think whatever "trial" got you to that point is a bit of a farce.

I believe in allowing the community a voice in sentencing for criminals but justice needs to be impartial. The community may give the white collar pension fund embezzeller the beat down he deserves, but it could also find that the convicted wife killer is just a kind, polite and quiet man, who always helped the neighbors take out the garbage and could never, never have done those horrible things the newspapers say he did.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 27 June 2003 01:14 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bakunin:
would it not be true democracy in action though? punishment as decided by ones peers? people could just as easily come and try to rehabilitate the criminal while they are in the stocks for a minor offence. i'm sure lots would. at the same time some rapist/murderer would probably get beaten and eventually killed. also serves as a good public lesson and certainly disuades people from recommitting certain types of crime.

This reads a lot like Mike Harris reasoning. I wonder.... Nah, couldn't be.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 27 June 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the curious things about harsh justice is that it doesn't work. Even more curious, most people believe that harsh justice does work. There is a very big chasm between belief and practice.

There are two requirements to make justice effective. First, the perpetrator of a crime must be caught and brought to trial. This may be the most important.

Second, the court must deal quickly and surely with the accused. If found guilty, the punishment must happen. It doesn't have to be harsh; but it has to happen. Even if it is just a term of "community service" it has to have teeth in it. There can be no way to weasel out of it.

If one believes that one can commit a crime without being caught, or, if caught, nothing will happen, then committing the crime looks like a good choice. Back when I was studying criminology, less than 3% of bank robbers went to jail. Very few ever got caught. And those who did had good lawyers. Look at the odds; bank robbery is good business. A better example today is with drugs. The rewards outweigh the risks.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 27 June 2003 01:21 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bakunin:
what do people think the effect(on violent crime rates) would be if violent offenders were put in
stocks like this and were placed in public places for varying amounts of time as sentences?

How about we get you to do the field test for us?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 June 2003 02:15 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The community may give the white collar pension fund embezzeller the beat down he deserves, but it could also find that the convicted wife killer is just a kind, polite and quiet man, who always helped the neighbors take out the garbage and could never, never have done those horrible things the newspapers say he did.

Isn't this exactly what we allow juries to do if they wish? It even has a name: jury nullification. When a jury decides, against what would appear to be common sense, to acquit? Remember the case of the Stratford woman who kidnapped her 3 kids and smuggled them into Mexico in the trunk of her car? Her jury nullified and she walked.

quote:
The rewards outweigh the risks.

People calculate risk as the product of the probability of a bad thing happening and the magnitude of the bad thing. Make the magnitude worse, and the percieved risk goes up.

As an example: many years ago I had friends who would think absolutely nothing of fishing out of season. Then the Ministry instituted law that allows them to confiscate your truck, your boat, your gear... pretty much everything, if you're caught poaching. Now poaching is a significantly riskier activity. They didn't have to hire new officers or change their methods of investigation - they just made it crystal clear to anglers that the day they're caught would be a nightmare. $30,000 worth of gear for one smallmouth bass? Not worth it.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 June 2003 02:35 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately, your friends prove why laws are needed.

But I digress. I do not believe penalties will have any effect upon persons who are predisposed to crime or persons acting not of forethought.

For example, the penalty for aggravated assault in Canada is reasobably stiff if you are caught and punished. The chances of your being caught and punished increase proportionately with two variables: is the crime being committed in your own neighbour hood? Are you likely to be recognized?

Yet, we have seen two teengage males in two different neighbourhoods, different economically and socially, beaten. One to death and one left with permanent injuries.

In the latter case, the perpetrators were under the young offenders act and in the former, I believe, it recently went to trial.

What is important is that had the perpetrators given any thought to capture and punishment in either case both victims would be alive and walking today. But they didn't. All that mattered was the slight, real, imagined or invented, of the moment.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 June 2003 02:49 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is important is that had the perpetrators given any thought to capture and punishment in either case both victims would be alive and walking today. But they didn't. All that mattered was the slight, real, imagined or invented, of the moment.

I'm guessing you might be referring to Jonathan Wamback? If so, the teens who stomped him into a coma, and permanent cognitive damage, got a year, which with the help of their parents was appealed down to 6 months, or roughly the same time it took Jonathan to learn to feed himself again.

So next time a gang of toughguys decides to beat the shit out of someone after school, why shouldn't they? After all, they know that they can render someone disabled for life and all they'll get is a few months in Juvenile Hall.

Not every violent crime happens an instant, and if punishment is absurdly inappropriate, as it was in this case, I think it effectively sends the message to those criminals who do consider what they're doing beforehand that maybe it is worth it.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 June 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree, in this case, the punishment was absurd. However, my point is that they did not think about it. Neither did the 19 year-old, being tried as an adult, who was extradited from Israel for the beating death of Matty Baranovski (what is happening with that, BTW?).

If they did think about it, for many even just the cost of mounting a legal defence, the crime would never happen.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 June 2003 03:05 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the Baranovski trial is getting bogged down in conflicting and dubious testimony, a la the Reena Virk trial.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 27 June 2003 04:29 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh great idea. We could just have the Toronto Sun publicise the most incriminating facts, then the roughest people could come down, shoulder aside any social worker types, and beat the convicted person up. There would never be a concern that minorities would get harsher treatment, because white Canadians would never do something like that (except in Somalia).
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 27 June 2003 04:35 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And while we're at it, we can do away with protective custody in prisons and put everyone together in the general population. They'll all be good about it, right?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
bakunin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3991

posted 27 June 2003 10:37 PM      Profile for bakunin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"I'm guessing you might be referring to Jonathan Wamback? If so, the teens who stomped him into a coma, and permanent cognitive damage, got a year, which with the help of their parents was appealed down to 6 months, or roughly the same time it took Jonathan to learn to feed himself again"

why not just put a bullet in the heads of the guilty? why should i(or anyone else) give a shit about rehabilitating someone like this? screw that three strikes you're out stuff, how about one strike and you're toast!


From: we may not convince you but we'll convince your children | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
batz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3824

posted 28 June 2003 09:41 PM      Profile for batz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suppose it's a matter of what you think justice is. Is the justice so many rabble rousers demand in the streets the same kind the justice meted out to those who really cause harm?

If the legal system could really assess guilt or innocence, then I'd say that releasing some offenders into the general prison population to fend for themselves would be fair. On the other hand, the arguments against this are the same as those against direct capital punishment, including the creation of a violent culture, and the emerging trend towards certain people being given death sentences over others.

If ones notion of justice requires punishment and using offenders as an example to deter others, then pretty much anything goes. But if restitution and rehabilitation are goals, then punishment isn't really an option, as it doesn't serve either goal.

I think offenders, for whose crimes there can be no adequate restitution, should be left at the mercy of the family or community of the victim with the state as executor of their will. For the rest, instead of a guilty/not-guily, there should be degrees of culpability, with sentences reflecting a broader range of options.


From: elsewhere | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca