Add this to your data points While you are at it, you might as well add this too... Or, this... This is compelling evidence that DUI laws do not deter drunk driving, while also supporting the idea that incarceration of repeat offenders can certainly prevent drunk driving - you can't drive if you are sitting in a cell. That said, and at the risk of arguing against myself, there is some Canadian research that supports the conclusion that sentences over 6 months in length do have a specific deterent effect (i.e. they reduce recidivism amongst drunk drivers). Finally, I would offer this, which proves both of us right. (BTW, you need to provide data on the number of licensed drivers, not overall population - and you need to provide data on the percentage of drivers incarcerated for DUI. Incarcerating every drunk driver will reduce incidence via prevention, but does nothing to prove deterence. Of note, jurisdiction with harsh sentencing DO experience reduced crime rates, simply because all the crooks are locked up. This comes at great cost however - something I hope you consider the next time you have a chance to vote on a get tough on crime law.)
I don't have the time to reply to everything here. But, willy, I stand corrected, you actually have experience then sorry about that. And GrAveTzT, you couldn't be more far from the truth with the comment about me not ever having any dealings. I'm actually a criminal investigator. So, I daresay, I probably have a little bit of a knowledge on how things work And I can't speak for those examples from Canada, as I'm not well versed in Canadian law nor cases, being that I'm American, and from Texas. I'm about as far away from Canada as an American can get and stay inside my country (next to Hawaii). And willy, I like how you talk about how reports are written, theres a term we use lol, articulation and justification. Maybe it's just me and my office, but, we don't try to stretch the truth etc., we put what actually happened and what our feelings were at the time about something. We don't try to stretch it like your example. Sure, there are cops out there that do that, but, the vast majority don't do that. At least none of the ones I've met.
A drunk behind the wheel of a car would have been a more humorous analogy. I find it interesting that your response to my DUI data was to provide correlated data of advertising campaigns put out by the same people who created the stronger DUI legislation(MADD). First off, I'm glad that you are now acknowledging the efforts of MADD had a direct impact on DUI deaths, and therefore incidence of DUI. Its a big step forward from your allegations that the reduction had something to do with societal changes, improvements in auto technology, or a decrease in CA population. Yes MADD took a multi-pronged attack at the problem, but I suppose your argument is that the advertising campaign alone would have had the same effect? Do you have any evidence of this? Everything I'm hearing from you sounds like opinion without even loosely associated facts to back it up. The very link you post do not back up these types of positions. Now there is an admission. You have no proof. Listen, I think if we all just gather round and have a big group hug, we will all feel so good about ourselves, the criminals amongst us will no longer commit crime. Lacking "proof" I can only look at myself and the anecdotal reports of others who have felt much better about themselves after a group hug. Now lets take your drug use analogy, which nobody really cares about, and apply it to things people do care about. A) Drunk driving. "Further, back in the day, when I did drive drunk a lot, fear of punishment never stopped me. It just made me more careful about how I drove when I had had a few drinks, and I chose bars closer to home" B) Burglary. "Further, back in the day, when I did burglarize homes, fear of punishment never stopped me(I needed money). I was just more careful to avoid homes where risk of getting caught was higher." In other words. Risk of punishment changed your behavior. We acknowledge that it didn't stop your behavior, but it changed it, and a series of small changes is how one lowers these types of criminal numbers statisticlly. Given that statement, I doubt there is anything I can present you that could convince you otherwise. I, on the other hand, have an open mind on the subject, and admittedly not the close personal experience with the pieces and parts that you have. If you were able to present something to back your claims that our current penal justice system does nothing to prevent crime, along with a viable, affordable alternative with real evidence to prove the net result would be better, you would find my support easy to garner. I just haven't seen anything like that from you yet. Haha. This post got me to thinking about your supporter, GrAveTzT, on this thread, who has clearly had more than one run in with the Po-lease. No, I'm a law abiding citizen, but that said, there are areas of the law that most every day citizens find themselves restrained by (DUI, Taxes, legal business practices, and speed limits, to name a few). In practically every area where my day to day activities do touch the boundaries of the legal system, I can assure you that if those boundaries did not have a "retributive penalty" associated, I would be stepping WAY over those lines, regardless of how much advertising was thrown at me to the contrary. So would you.
Gee, back here I wrote, "Perhaps it has to do with changing societal standards? Concurrent with harsher punishment there has been a very intense public message campaign regarding the dangers of driving while impaired (or using tobacco)." Just an oversight, I am sure... I have provided evidence that harsher punishment actually increases recidivism rates - in other words, it increases the amount of crime committed by that small subset of people that are criminals. I have also pointed out that longer sentences can result in a decrease in crime, but at a crushing cost. This is not due to deterence, but to prevention. People in prison are unavailable to commit new crimes. Many years ago I had the opportunity to interview a couple of hundred felons to gather information about the ratio of crimes committed to convictions. The data was astounding. Less than 0.01 felonies resulted in an arrest, and only about 1 in 10 arrests resulted in a conviction. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! For every conviction these people were committing over 1000 felonies. So much for the idea that punishment effectively deters criminal behavior! As I stated previously, fear can at best provide situational deterence. Your examples of taxes, speeding, etc. would fall under the category of situational deterence. When do you speed? When you judge the risk to be acceptable of course. How dark of a grey area do you work in while doing taxes? Depends on your risk tolerance, doesn't it? We don't even need to discuss how you have moved from serious felonies into the realm of infractions and misdemeanors. It really does begin to be apples and oranges. An open mind? First, you continue to confuse prevention with deterence. Prison and the death penalty both prevent crime. Dead people don't do crime, nor do people sitting in prison cells. That is really very different than detering crime, and if you go back and read this thread my position has been to argue against the idea of deterence - not prevention. If you believe punishment deters, then bring back corporal punishment. It is far quicker and far cheaper. Shucks, if you are chopping off hands it might even act as a prevention. I have also directed you to data about alternatives to our current system. You use the word "affordable". The current system is hardly affordable. Look here if you don't believe me. Roughly $70 BILLION a year in 2006, and increasing every day (that is just for corrections - make it over $200 billion if you include police and courts). You can do the cost/benefit analysis... What to do? Identify the 20% of criminals that are incorrigable and get them of the streets. There are evil people out there, and that is why prisons (and/or the death penalty) exist. This is prevention, not deterence. Identify the 20% that will not reoffend after their first sanction. Sanction them at a reasonable level and let them get on with their lives. Provide evidence based interventions (choke on this - social/rehabilitation programs) to the remaining 60% to reduce their likelihood of reoffending. We are spending better than $60/day to incarcerate these people. Shift that $22k/yr into something that works. Do the math. Every 1% reduction in recidivism can save as much as $1 billion dollars... I'm sorry. And no, so wouldn't I. I am actually pretty risk aversive. I don't get off on fast driving or other high risk activities. Like I said before, I am one of those people that gives back money when I am given incorrect change.
Still not talking about recidivism. You keep bringing it back up. Good argument for a cheap and swift death penalty. No thanks... I don't smoke. Now you are talking about detection. We haven't really touched on this topic yet, and I'm not sure it is even relevant. Nothing you have discussed has addressed any issues in detection either. The low rate of detection is a known for most crimes. The low rate of conviction is an artifact of our legal system. If you want to talk about things not part of the current thread, I would recommend talking about fixing the economy. I've seen several statistics that indicate crime rate has more to do with economic conditions than fire arms laws, number of cops on the street, or tougher laws on the books for specific crimes. Still waiting for the evidence you were promising. So you are saying fear can provide deterence. OK. We agree. I win. I'll leave it there. I'm a fan of both prevention and deterrence, thanks. Why do you keep resurrecting this straw man? You talk like you already have, and know the answer. Why don't you share your findings, scientifically arrived at, with us? Affordable is a relative thing based on such a cost/benefit analysis. There is the 2 billion dollar a year "just say no" program that delivers mixed results. I wonder how much the, "Don't murder your wife" program would cost? Agree. What is your criteria in identifying these people? What type of sanction for killing your wife? How about beating your child to death? Killing the man your wife is cheating with in a murderous rage? How about killing your ex-wifes new boyfriend.. OK style? We obviously need a sanction index. I'm waiting with bated breath for your ideas on this one. Same question as above, for those the state deems likely to repeat any of the actions above (frankly, if you killed your cheating wife and her boyfriend in a murderous rage, it probably won't happen again, so you wouldnt fit into this category, right? Who decides that again? Interestingly, so am I. If you are telling me you could generate an extra million dollars for your business by use of illegal subliminal advertising without risk of penalty you wouldn't do it, I'll know you are just lying to me. Even if you were telling the truth, mother Theresa style, the majority of the human population, educated or otherwise, would(over and over again). You are also wrong when saying cheating on your taxes(stealing from the federal/state government) doesn't have anything to do with assault and battery or murder. Means, motive, and opportunity. The motive of financial gain is the same between cheating on your taxes, murder for hire, and extortion, all of which are mainstays of organized crime. The means can always be found, and removing penalties increases opportunity. Right now, gang bangers in LA use minors to commit their crimes because life sentences to juveniles are less likely. Under your system, I would start up a murder for hire business, where I used poor people who had never committed a crime, and would therefore be found unlikely to re-offend, and pay them to commit one and only one murder. As part of their payment, I would pay whatever sanction the state would enforce as part of their punishment. For the right price, my clients could get away with murder.
Let's recap where we have been... Over here hostlonestar stated (in regards to the death penalty, which is the subject of this thread): So, I ask a simple question, which remains unanswered. If it is simply punishment you want, why can it not be corporal punishment? As you have pointed out about the death penalty, it is far cheaper, and could certainly be swifter. Now, most people seem to have dropped out of this discussion, but your position can be summarized that you believe punishment deters crime. Again, I would ask why the only acceptable form of punishment is long and expensive prison terms? It appears that you think harsher punishment has a greater deterent effect (even though I have directed you to sources suggesting the opposite). If you want really harsh punishment, why must it be limited to long and expensive prison terms? You call it a straw man. I call it seeking clarification. Why is it that we can kill someone, but we can't whip or disfigure them? Help me with this distinction - a distinction that is entirely relevant as long as the primary goal is punishment (or retribution). The rest of the dialogue has been to clarify certain aspects of how our current system does (or doesn't) work and to point you to sources of further information. I am not of the impression that you are truly interested in answers to the questions you raise in your last post, but rather that you just want to play the "group hug" against the "put a bullet in their head" - something that I would suggest is exagerating to absurdity. Clearly, I think the US is wasting many billions of dollars on a highly dysfunctional criminal [in]justice system. You on the other hand, with no experience in the field, and able to speak only in gross generalities or conservative sound bites, believe otherwise. I sincerely hope that neither you nor yours has opportunity to experience the system first hand - either as "offender" or as "victim".
I was not talking about people who own farms. I was talking about people who own farms who have no respect for the law and make their own rules with the law because they feel like they are too far away paved roads to fall under the police jurisdiction. The talk about corruption is a good example on why the death penalty should not be in place. Death as a penalty for crime is pretty absolute, and justice should be the same way. The corruption example shows that there are too many loopholes to break justice. To all readers: This comment he said was referring to myself mentioning that I reserve the right to have the freedom to post, and I mentioned that many people always say "don't post until you know what you are talking about" To prove my freedom to post at digitalpoint is easy enough. Allow me to explain. To give evidence that I deserve this privilege I have not gotten personal and you have several times. I know you may not believe me but it does not add strengh to your argument. Firstly, I don't release documents like that online. Secondly, just because its written does not mean its followed. This Reasonable Doubt thing is BS. That doesn't matter in court. Even though not 100%, for the most part in court, what matters is who you are, how much power/money you got, how good your lawyer is, etc. Forget about the reasonable doubt & justice business because when you go through court it gets twisted so bad by all of the policies, rules, and lawyers that goes out the window. Thirdly, please don't use wikipedia as a "link". Wikipedia is a free edited site meaning that any 12yr old can chance stuff(and they do a lot). Its simple. It doesn't matter if its a civil or criminal matter. It's another example of how the law is not concrete enough to have such a concrete penalty like death. Both you and I know that sarcasm is really childish. There isn't really a point to this sentence you threw me here. I cannot provide links to anything I mentioned because its based on many of my personal experience. You want me to find you links of corruption in the law so that you understand that the death penality is too risky for people to get wrongfully screwed over by the system. You know that this law system is so messed up, there's no reason to keep battling with the death penalty. If so you are saying "meh, 10 out of 50 are innocent but die". That's not right. These people have families and because of the law system "can't be fair to them all" they have to accept their death fate. It doesn't make sense. man.
Sorry if I got personal, or if you feel I got personal. Not sure why you feel the need to justify your privilege to post here. I certainly never said otherwise. I am aware that personal jibes do not add strength to an argument, you don't have to convince me. Essentially, you have presented your argument without evidence. It is purely your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I would point out, as I already have, that the burden of proof changes dramatically between civil and criminal court, so equating them is silly. Secondly, as Willy pointed out, we have a very low death penalty conviction rate. I believe that when we fry someone, they deserve it. I've not seen any numbers on it, but I suspect the rate would be around 1 in 500 for innocent people killed by the state. Compared to the number of innocent people killed by murderers paroled by the state, the death penalty is a more compassionate solution to society as a whole. Maybe if we sued the state for failure to do their job/DA incompetence every time a murderer walked and killed someone, people would come to understand the reality of that. HostLonestar already answered that question. Corporal punishment vs Capital punishment, not to mention the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. If you feel death is cruel and unusual, that is your issue. I won't address this straw man again. Nice dodge. Essentially, I'm not really interested in answers, in your opinion, so you wont provide them. I have no personal experience on the topic, so my thoughts are not helpful. It seems that when you are pressed for details on your "solution" to this multi-billion dollar problem, you have none, or are unwilling to provide them. Perhaps you are concerned the details of your solution might provide outcomes that are highly undesirable? This seems to be a common liberal mantra these days. We need "Change", don't worry about the details. That mentality produces more problems than it solves. If your ideas are solid, they will withstand the slings and arrows of the naysayers. In a few hours, the Senate is going to vote on a health care bill most of them have not read. That should tell you something about the confidence the authors have in it's content.
I will accept that as tacit agreement that harsh measures taken towards criminal defendents, when imposed only for "punishment" or retribution are in fact cruel and unusual. FWIW, judicial corporate punishment in the US does not lie that far in the past. And, as you know, it would only take one properly argued case in front of the right court to change current definitions of what constitutes cruel and unusual. If you want certainty, there is only one way to get it. Put everyone in prison. (Not sure who will pay the bills though.) When dealing with humans the best we can do is probabilities - exactly what the insurance industry does. Acturial analysis is the proper term I believe. Thing is, conservatives love to cherry pick the anomaly to "prove" a point. As I previously stated, there are evil people in this world, and they do not deserve to live in our society. There is, however, no certain way to winnow them out. Interstingly, when assessing for psychopathy we find certain groups score quite high - extreme criminals, politicians, attorneys, corporate executives and public safety personnel. In fact, some authors have postulated that our society rewards sociopathic traits. I have on occassion thought it would be interesting to run certain members of this forum through some of these assessments.
Propose a complete and detailed solutions, not just the standard liberal fare of ideals and what is wrong with the current solution.
Sorry to keep whipping this dead horse (pun intended), but your assertion that the constitution prohibits corporal punishment didn't quite seem right, so I did some further investigation... Here is a nice piece looking at the issue: Don't fool yourself about the use of judicial corporal punishment in the US. Take a look here. That it is generally used on juveniles these days does not mean that it doesn't exist. Delaware only removed corporal punishment from its statutes in 1972, and the pillory was used up until 1905. So it would appear that CP is not the straw man you assert. I would ask you again, if you believe that punitive "justice" is effective, why do you not support the use of corporal punishment? There may be a surprising amount of support out there. You may remember as early as 1994 when Ohio teenager Michael Fay was caned in Singapore that there were bills introduced at the State and local level authorizing corporal punishment (none were passed as far as I know). Perhaps you can better explain your distinction between punitive prison sentences and corporal punishment, since the idea that they are somehow unconsitutional does not hold a lot of water.
Its a strawman if you think either I, or anyone else I've seen on this thread, support corporal punishment. Apparently, the people you are arguing against are not on this forum.
Didn't know there was a current solution. (Sounds like "final solution".) Perhaps you meant current "system". "Complete and detailed" solutions would, I am afraid, be far beyond your current understanding. A waste of both your and my time...
The premise that punishment deters crime is one that you have defended fiercely. I am asking you to make a logical distinction between punishment and... punishment. It appears that you are unable to do this, and so throw out the idea of a straw man. I will accept that as you inability to defend your position.
Can you distinguish between walking and ... walking? How about between walking and running? How about between punitive damages and corporal punishment? How about between whipping and incarceration? What I can do, is distinguish between grounding my child for bad behavior and beating him around the room with a baseball bat. The fact that you apparently cannot disturbs me greatly. Weren't you lecturing me earlier about insults having no place in the conversation? Considering this comes at the end of the conversation, and constitutes your entire argument, I'll take it as an admission you've got nothing left. Thanks.
Do you ground your child in order to correct his/her behavior? Do you do anything besides "grounding" to educate/motivate your children (ooooh, sounds almost like social programs), or, is the punishment enough? This, after all, is the position that you have argued - that punishment is sufficient to deter criminal behavior. How long does "grounding" last? Again, you argue that punishment deters crime. You have failed to provide any support beyond anecdotes or personal conviction. It is pretty obvious by this point that you are satisfied to "make 'em pay" as long as you can console yourself with ill thought out positions that you are not being "cruel and unusual". Yet, when pushed to the wall with nothing more than a question you are left utterly defensless. As is often the case with individuals who have failed to think their position through you try to go on the offensive, challenging you questioner to provide data to back their position up. This I have done. You have not. In fact, the only real "data" you have provided on anything was DUI statistics, and those without any thoughtful analysis to support your position. Here are some statistics for you (I will use three strike laws, since the data is readily available). Yeah, let's make 'em pay... ...that will make the streets a safer place... And it will deter further crime as well! Give us some facts guy! Give us some logic!! Show us that some punishments work better than others, or are more morally acceptible (and why). Show us the benefits we will accrue from your position - personal and societal. In short, put up or shut up.
I'm not sure of the rate either. I would think its probably even less than 1/500. Probably 1 in 2000 would be my guess. I still would suck for that one person, their family, and the future of the their family legacy to be damnned forever. I believe the death penalty could possibly be done correct but it would be tough. Exspecially since many police who are charged with serious criminal offenses end up getting punished by being suspended with/without pay, while reg. people ar charged and sent to prison. I'm sure it this type of hand out punishment happens for a lot of higher class people. http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/10/29/suspended-with-pay/ http://www.kylestubbins.com/node/37 http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/140999/two_kansas_city_police_officers_are.html?cat=17 No doubt. I'd be a criminal for sure in those places.
Willy, you are becoming less and less lucid. Someone needs to get you some smelling salts, because you are just repeating yourself now. "The current system is broken" "Punishment does not fix crime" Still lacking are your solutions. Somehow, your complaints about the current system while proposing no viable alternative have become my burden of proof? Present a viable and detailed alternative so we can compare and contrast like adults. What is so difficult about that?