Vigilante Justice

[Adone]

it's no coincidence that Scandinavian countries, which have the nicest prisons in the world (some even are reminiscent of college campuses) and the lightest sentencing procedures also have the lowest crime rates.

Among European capitals, Helsinki has the second place for the highest number of homicides.


Anyway, lowest crime rates are most likely related to overall wealth rather than nice prisons.

 

[Visceral]

clearly repeat offenders should be punished more severely than first time offenders. However, the fact that these cases deal with third strike laws does not change the fact that the punishments were horribly disproportional to the crimes committed. Stealing 200 dollars worth of children's videos from a large store does not equate to 25 years to LIFE imprisonment regardless of how many times it's done by one person. putting those men away not only increases their personal criminality, but also wastes hundreds of thousands if not millions of taxpayer dollars and sends a horrible precedent for the future of sentencing in America.

to address something that Jariel said: the idea that guards abusing prisoners is ever good is ridiculous. there's no doubt in my mind that American prisons (and prisons in general) deter crime to some extent, but there is also strong evidence that the harsh conditions of US prisons actually produce criminals. quite frankly it's a miracle if anybody is able to spend even a few months in an American prison without becoming a worse, more violent, more dangerous human being than they were before.

it's no coincidence that Scandinavian countries, which have the nicest prisons in the world (some even are reminiscent of college campuses) and the lightest sentencing procedures also have the lowest crime rates.

I would argue that sentencing and prison conditions are a product of society, not the other way around. The Scandinavians are just nice people: liberal, compassionate, and community-minded ... that's why their justice system is the way it is.

That's why American sentencing is so harsh and our prisons are hellholes; it's a reflection of our collective attitude towards crime and punishment. If punishment in Scandinavia is about rehabilitation, punishment in America is about revenge: tough, manly revenge instead of faggy European compassion and therapy. Add our obsession with our stuff and religious sadomasochism, and you couldn’t have any other system in this country.

Additionally, rehabilitation would be even more expensive than the current system, and since no American likes to pay taxes - not even those who would benefit from a Scandinavian-style welfare state - it’s not going to happen for that reason as well.

There was a time when some prisons were based on the idea of rehabilitation – it was called the Pennsylvania System and was inspired by the Quakers; I don’t know how successful those prisons were at rehabilitating, but they didn’t turn a profit, so were considered failures and abandoned in favor of the profitable hard labor and harder punishment New York System.

Also, the victims and/or their families would never tolerate either light sentences or non-hellhole prisons, no matter how trivial the crime might be. Caesar knew that if the Roman mob wanted blood, he had to give them blood - either his own or someone else’s - and American officials are in much the same position. There are no doubt Americans who would like to see all crimes punished by death; be glad they’re not the majority, because if they were, that’s the kind of justice system we’d have.

Another reason the Scandinavian countries have such low crime rates is the existence of the welfare state: everything important (education, health care, etc.) is free and of the highest quality, fueled by high, progressive taxation, which combined with their egalitarian approach to capitalism, means no-one has any practical reason to commit crimes.

In America, it's exactly the opposite; you're either “the man” or you're his meat. From gangs, drugs, and welfare in the ghetto to white-collar crime and predatory capitalism in the central business district, security and success in America is increasingly requiring the use of illegal and/or immoral means. In America, the only thing that doesn’t pay is honest work.

 

[Porky]

Among European capitals, Helsinki has the second place for the highest number of homicides.


Anyway, lowest crime rates are most likely related to overall wealth rather than nice prisons.

you found one isolated incidence. the fact is, Norway, Sweden, and Finland have the lowest crime rates in the world and among the lowest imprisonment rates and the nicest prisons. I'm sure overall wealth is a factor - but these three countries also have the most comprehensive social welfare programs in the world. One could argue that if we reduced sentencing and imprisonment rates in America we could improve social welfare and thus reduce crime.

I wasn't even saying that nice prisons are the chief deterrent of crime. you took what I was saying out of context. The point I was making was that vigilantism in prisons aren't as beneficial as Jariel thinks.

 

[Porky]

Additionally, rehabilitation would be even more expensive than the current system, and since no American likes to pay taxes - not even those who would benefit from a Scandinavian-style welfare state - it’s not going to happen for that reason as well.

There was a time when some prisons were based on the idea of rehabilitation – it was called the Pennsylvania System and was inspired by the Quakers; I don’t know how successful those prisons were at rehabilitating, but they didn’t turn a profit, so were considered failures and abandoned in favor of the profitable hard labor and harder punishment New York System.

those prisons were anything but based on true rehabilitation. The Quakers made the prisoners remain silent at all times and for the most part they were confined, alone, in their cells. Mental illness was much higher in the Quaker prisons than in other prisons, and when Charles ****ens took a tour of American prisons he determined that the "rehabilitative" prisons were infinitely crueler than the non-rehabilitative ones.

I don't know the statistics on how expensive rehabilitation would be, but I think that if rehabilitation might work the social benefits would easily outweigh the possible monetary costs, wouldn't you agree? there's no evidence that rehabilitation even works, but as a society we haven't really tried it.

call the Scandinavians whatever you want, but remember that those "faggy" Euros are getting results and we sure aren't.

 

[Visceral]

those prisons were anything but based on true rehabilitation. The Quakers made the prisoners remain silent at all times and for the most part they were confined, alone, in their cells. Mental illness was much higher in the Quaker prisons than in other prisons, and when Charles ****ens took a tour of American prisons he determined that the "rehabilitative" prisons were infinitely crueler than the non-rehabilitative ones.

Prisoners were required to remain silent at all times in prisons run on the alternative New York System as well; they were also forced into hard labor, and subject to severe punishment for any violation of the prison rules. Prisoners in modern prisons still spend most of their time in their cells. I know that if I went to prison that I would beg for solitary confinement; it would be the only way I could survive.

I don't know the statistics on how expensive rehabilitation would be, but I think that if rehabilitation might work the social benefits would easily outweight the possible monetary costs, wouldn't you agree? there's no evidence that rehabilitation even works, but as a society we haven't really tried it.

I do agree that the benefits of rehabilitation would outweigh the costs. I also believe that the benefits of comprehensive social and economic reform to eliminate the motives for crime would outweigh the still greater costs. My point was only that the American people would not accept such measures. They would regard prison conditions like those of the Scandinavian countries as rewarding crime, and they certainly would object to the high taxes and extensive government intervention in daily life that comprehensive reform would require.

by the way, calling the Scandinavian system of justice "faggy" is pretty stupid considering how effective it seems to be. blame our society or whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that those faggy Euros are gettings results and we sure aren't.

You misunderstand me. I was attempting to mock the average American's view of European sensibilities, not presenting my own view. You are correct that the Scandinavian approach to crime is vastly superior to our own and I wish that our government would have the good sense to adopt it, along with the Scandinavian welfare state as well. I can't understand why anyone would want to live under anything else.

 

[Porky]

I'll write a better response later, but just real quick now...

I thought you might be doing that by calling the Scandinavians faggy, but there were no quotes. sorry that I misunderstood you.

also, the New York prisons technically had a rule of silence, but this was never enforced.

 

[Brian20o2]

One thing people need to realise is that prisons are a bandaid on a wound that wont heal and is growing. The only way to stop crime is to stop the source. The source is people who are desperate and on the edge. What sane sensible person would rob a convienince store? You wouldnt unless that was your only way to get money and your only hope of survival.

Personally I think our system of Justice is fine but our problems are not being healed, just patched. I would love to adopt the Euopen ways for many things but America has far to many ignorant people who know nothing but think they have the answer to all problems.

 

[Marlimus]

There is no statistical correlation between severity of punishment and reduction in crime rates. To recommend extravagant punishment based on emotional response is ignorant, ineffective, and barbaric.

Many prison systems around the world make the problem worse, not better. The 'lock em up and throw away the key' mentality makes it politically incorrect to spend money on making the prison system a true institute for reform or for enforcing basic human rights; as a result prisons become festering hovels of veneral disease, violence, rape, and psychosis. The entrenched abuse, extraodinarily hostile living conditions and constant exposure to violence all require the suspension of morals and the subjugation of the conscience. The result: when the prisoner emerges, he is hardened by his experiences and has nothing but contempt for society, in many cases, he is more dangerous than he was before.

Having emerged from prison, the recently released offender finds himself categorically excluded from mainstream society. He is the first to be screened for job applications and the first to be denied for loans, credit, or any sort of financial aid. Although this does not excuse a return to crime, it is a contributing factor: the inability to reintgrate into polite society.

A retributive justice system and an excessively punitive prison system is a breeding ground for sociopaths. A legal system based on vengence and torture has no moral or principle-based authority, and the people instinctively know this. The law derives its real authority from its ability to strive to uphold justice: when it is influenced by rage and retribution, it loses this authenticity and becomes an arbitrary structure to be heeded at the citizen's convenience.

 

[Porky]

Good post Marlimus.

I'd say that there is certainly a correlation between severity of punishment and a reduction in crime rates. There's no evidence that the death penalty deters better than life, but (not to be extreme, or anything) life and the DP certainly deter murder better than a 1000$ fine would.

Also, I think a retributive system is better than the alternative utalitarian system, which punishes for the good of society rather than because somebody deserves it.

 

[Adone]

call the Scandinavians whatever you want, but remember that those "faggy" Euros are getting results and we sure aren't.

Consider the differences between USA and Scandinavia; firstly, there are a lot less people, plus there are less social differences. These 2 factors are really important in avoiding crime.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Scandinavian countries also have mandatory jail time for even a 1st-time dui.

There are many social differences about scandinavia that make it seem like a better place. In having discussed this with a few people from there, they tend to agree that Norway and Sweden are in part so well off because they have a lot of oil and natural resources, and also because they have embraced free trade economics of the west. Finland, in comparison, has little oil and had closer ties to the Soviets, and they do not have as wealthy of a country today as their neighbors to the west. So yes, there are many factors that contribute to the social climate of Scandinavia.

 

[Porky]

Consider the differences between USA and Scandinavia; firstly, there are a lot less people, plus there are less social differences. These 2 factors are really important in avoiding crime.

are you saying that overcrowding in American cities is contributing to our high crime rates?

because last time I checked crime rates had nothing to do with total population.

 

[Adone]

are you saying that overcrowding in American cities is contributing to our high crime rates?

because last time I checked crime rates had nothing to do with total population.

I know that rate implies a rapport and is not statistically related to total population. But overcrowding is often related to low life's standards, thus crime.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Stronger laws and longer sentences have never worked.

I disagree. If we execute offenders for ALL crimes, I guarentee you, crime rates will go down.

And then, if offenders aren't deterred, start torture.

Crime WILL go down.

 

[LuciferSam]

Nice one diplomatic lies.

Seriously, prison is no longer a deterent.

Hell, if they made f*cking prisoners work, like real, hard manual labour that everyday joes have to bust their asses off to then the light will be seen.

When we live in a world where the criminal has more rights than the victim then wtf. Sh1t, I think I might go and become a peadophile, you know, go and play with some children, i'll be out before momma finishes cooking my f*cking dinner, its disgraceful!



(for future reference, i was being ironic with the peadophile thing)

 

[Marlimus]

Those who say that extreme punishment will make crime go down do not know history. In England, at one point in time, there were no less than 300 capital offenses. That's right. 300 different ways to lose your head. The medeival world featured punishments the likes of which the world has never seen since, from being ripped apart by horses, to be being impaled with hundreds of iron spikes inside a metal coffin, to the good-old fashioned boiling alive. to receive a whipping the likes of which would flay the flesh off your back was a relatively light sentence, and if we go further back to the days of Rome, there was crucifixion, which by historical accounts, lasted up to three days.

In both instances, crime was abundant. In some modern-day Islamic fundamentalist states Sharia laws still applies quite literally: steal, and your hand is cut off. Slander a man's wife, and your tongue is ripped out. Rape, and well...You get the picture. And yet, high crime rates persist.

 

[Visceral]

That's a good way to put it, Marlimus.

People who find violence easy to justify are more likely to commit violence themselves.

People who see the laws as getting in their way are more likely to break them, while people who see the laws as necessary or good are more likely to follow them.

A society full of people who can't bring themselves to punish their criminals any way other than as lightly as possible is a society that's likely to be full of people that can't bring themselves to commit crimes.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

The problem with citing medieval Europe is, suffering was an accepted part of life back then. As a result, violent punishment wasn't a deterrant because most people expected life to be painful. Immense poverty during that time also made people more daring (if you're gonna starve to death, you probably dont care about being executed for stealing bread).

But in modern 1st world countries, most people are very afraid of pain, because pain isn't an acceptable part of everyday life. For example, boiling a teenage shoplifter alive would definitely deter shoplifters in wealthy First World nations (ie. USA).

 

[dannowillbookem]

A society full of people who can't bring themselves to punish their criminals any way other than as lightly as possible is a society that's likely to be full of people that can't bring themselves to commit crimes.

this is a really good point. if we are now the pvssy society afore mentioned, and we were to somehow bring ourselves to impose laws and sentences that would be chosen by a society of people of rougher standards, we can lower crime.

in fact that sounds like the only way.

 

[Visceral]

What kind of person does it take to boil a teenager alive for a trivial crime? A psychopath; someone with no inhibitions at causing great pain to another and a very low regard for human life.

What would it take to institutionalize such a draconian approach to crime and punishment? A society full of psychopaths.

What would life in a society full of psychopaths be like? Use your imagination, but I doubt it would be pleasant.

People living in Medieval Europe accepted the brutality of life because there was nothing they could do about. They were trapped in serfdom, lobotomized by religion, and subject to a particularly distasteful idea called "droite de seigneur", which basically meant that your lord had a legal right to do as he pleased with you, whatever that may be.

this is a really good point. if we are now the pvssy society afore mentioned, and we were to somehow bring ourselves to impose laws and sentences that would be chosen by a society of people of rougher standards, we can lower crime.

in fact that sounds like the only way.

This is exactly the opposite of what I meant, and would have exactly the opposite effect that you think it would. Living in such a society would so desensitize us to violence that we would have no inhibitions at committing such violence ourselves.