Deterring Crime

What Extreme Punishment, It don't exist!

http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jsp?forum=310&thread=300027151
from JoeUser Forums
Extreme Punishment, what a joke! The only extreme punishment in the US would be the Death Penalty, and the odds of a murderer actually being A)Put on death row and B)Actually being executed are soo low, it's not worth the thought.

Extreme Punishment wouldn't be 3 square meals a day, bed with clean linens and a laundry service, cable TV, Utilities, "yard privileges" such as gyms, basketball courts, etc. All for free! Oh yea, I forgot the free college education and/or GED, and job training, health care, all free, then on top of all that, get an allowance. And Low security Federal prisons are even nicer to live in.

Now, deter that, rather hard to do. Why do murderers and rapists and drug dealers and such need a gym, or cable TV, or a TV at all for that matter, They can get their news from the radio piped over the intercom system for all I care. Not going to deter crime when they can live better in prison than on the streets for starters.

Hey if I rob the liqueur store, I might go to prison, oh well. Now try this, remove the non essential elements from the prisons for starters (the food can taste like crewel) and bring in some corporal punishment! The Nuns had it right smacking unruly kids knuckles with a ruler. It's obvious that rehabilitation don't work for to many (not saying all) so why bother? Why give a murderer a college degree? what purpose does it serve? Why do Convicts need porno mags? And why do I have to pay for stupid appeals? No new evidence, no appeal (giant period).

There is nothing wrong with "Tent City", pink boxer shorts and giant vacancy signs, or even chain gangs.

"Yet if the prisoners housed in Arizona's Maricopa County tent city jails are complaining, they have some good reasons. At that facility the incarcerated are fed only two meals a day, with green bologna sometimes appearing on the menu. They are quartered in outdoor tents under sweltering conditions, and they sleep on cots which lack pillows. They work on chain gangs. And they wear pink underwear. " http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=tentcity

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has a good thing going down there, I know I would sure think twice if I knew I was going someplace like that. Especially since I live in Nebraska.

But also, since we are talking about crime prevention, Health and Human services needs to get their act together, in an effort to prevent children from become offenders, namely abused/neglected children and children being brought up in a criminal family. What would also help this would be no more children visiting their incarcerated parents (ouch). Children raised with criminals, learn the ways of criminals, and since crime does sometimes pay, and prison is easier than earning a living...... you can draw your own conclusions.

Summary, smack em with switches once month for the duration of their sentence and see if they want to come back.
politics
27,999 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's "deterring" and "deter"

spell your titles right and more people might read the articles

Oh, and I think your pro-torture stance is pretty frightening. Check out this little tidbit:

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have never been able to spell.

And It's not a pro torture stance, torture would be putting them on the Rack, or hanging them by metal cuffs down the side of a wall with their feet not touching the ground, or all manner of actually tortures I could think of that in the distant past, have been used.

The question is then, how to deter crime, esspecially when the prisons are just as good (or better) than a hotel. When the prisoners have more rights than their victims. What does it say to the public, especially the poor that don't have cable TV when convicted Felons live better than them. The many prisons even allow them to have their own selection of clothing.

If you don't like my idea of bringing back the paddle then make your own suggestion on how to deter future criminals.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #1 By: Myrrander - 1/7/2005 1:39:51 PM
it's "deterring" and "deter"


yer better than this myrrrr
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Come on............ A million dollor bail to anyone but a millionaire is excessive, but that impossed alla time..
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Oh yea, I forgot the free college education and/or GED, and job training, health care, all free


What would you rather have an ex-con doing. Welding or B&E? These programs are provided to prevent them from falling back into the same life that got them in prison when they get out. Say you have 2 inmates, one who has kicked his drug addiction, and got job training to work in industrial welding, and gets a 9 to 5 job upon his release, and one who has not kicked his drug habits, and has no job and no drug money. Which do you think is more likely to break into your house because he needs money for drugs?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you misunderstand the point of incarceration. It's primary purpose is to remove freedom from the prisoners. It's not designed to punish or to rehabilitate (which goes some way to explain why such attempts are nearly always failures). The level of care provided in prisons is of course up to the people who pay for it, but discomfort and chain gangs aren't really a required component of the 'limited freedom' punishment.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
It has been proven by the criminologists Schumann (1987) and Mathiesson (1990) that the severity of the sentence has no effect on deterrence. Severity only deters small offences (like traffic violations).

Governments constantly enact tougher laws against crime because people like you are under the impression it will fix something, or that crime is getting worse. And do you realise that most of those people will get out one day and reintegrate society? They need to be socialized, not punished severely.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Be prepared for the person nodding in agreement next to you to hang your ass if they're on a civil jury. People say one thing then do another when it gets down to it.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
how do you plan to socialize them? In prison, who do they socialize with, other felons. What happens when they get out on parol and figure out that they can't offord the standard of living they had in prison? Especially since most employers will not hire a felon. Especially a violent felon or a theif.

Nearly 33% of State prison releases in 1999 were drug offenders, 25% were violent offenders and 31% were property offenders.

Among State parole discharges in 2000, 41% successfully completed their term of supervision; relatively unchanged since 1990.
Link

Also notice that over 70% of property offenders reoffend within 3 yrs, and over 60% total reoffend in 3 yrs. I can't find statistics that go longer than 3 yrs. Wheeee that sure sounds like the education is working.

Why is this a concern of mine, my EX is currently serving 5-8 yrs for B&E, and has been in and out of the system so many times since the age of 8 it's not even funny. Every time he gets out, he "changed for the better" and that lasts a week or so. Crazy8 has been in prison 3 times (I don't know if he is now or not) all for sex with minors. Of the group of people I used to hang out with, most are in/have been in prison and show no signs of reform. And the few I knew that managed to stay out for any amout of time, just learned how not to get caught. They all talked about how easy prison was and how well they had it there. Basic training was harder than Prison.

So how bout ideas.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #6 By: cactoblasta - 1/7/2005 8:20:13 PM
I think you misunderstand the point of incarceration. It's primary purpose is to remove freedom from the prisoners. It's not designed to punish or to rehabilitate (which goes some way to explain why such attempts are nearly always failures). The level of care provided in prisons is of course up to the people who pay for it, but discomfort and chain gangs aren't really a required component of the 'limited freedom' punishment.


um, remove freedom? Prison isn't for punishment? That's all news to me. I feel so much better knowing that they aren't being punished for murdering my friend. It's nice to know that murderers and rapests should have all the comforts of home. Felons don't need to earn their keep, and the taxpayers get to pay their way.

Average inmate cost approximately $20,100 per year Link

The Tent city in AZ costs $7 a day per inmate, and inmates have to pay $1 a day for food.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's primary purpose is to remove freedom from the prisoners. It's not designed to punish or to rehabilitate (which goes some way to explain why such attempts are nearly always failures).


This is patently false as any entry level Criminal Justice class will teach.

The real debate centers around whether prison sentences are for rehabilitation or deterrence. There is significant data to support both stances.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think you misunderstand the point of incarceration. It's primary purpose is to remove freedom from the prisoners.


People are sent to jail/prison as punishment for a crime.  They are not sent there to be rehabilitated.  There is no additional punishment whilst incarcerated, the incarceration is supposed to be the punishement in and of itself. (*the preceeding was courtesy of my husband, the military jail warden*)


I understand that we need to get people out of the lifestyles that contributed to them offending in the first place, but...just because you teach a man to fish doesn't mean he's going to utilize that skill and feed himself for the rest of his life, dig?   Sometimes people who can fish think it's easier to go take someone else's catch.  (that was all very cryptic, but I'm slightly sleep deprived right now...I hope someone 'got it')


I personally think that Joe Arapaio has the right idea.  If you don't like the conditions at the Maricopa County Jail, make sure you don't do anything to earn yourself another stay there.


 


 

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is significant data to support both stances.


No there isn't! Show me one, just one, modern researcher/criminologist (or even just a study) that believes deterrence works for serious offences.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
No there isn't! Show me one, just one, modern researcher/criminologist (or even just a study) that believes deterrence works for serious offences.


http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html Link here is one.....


http://www.leviz.com/protection/article_concealed_weapons_deter_violent_crimes.html
Link
here is two......

Want more?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
The first study actually concurs with my point. Exactly like Mathiesson said in 1990, the certainty of being caught is much more important than the severity of the sentence. Just like the study you pointed to concludes by saying:

"The odds of imprisonment for a serious offense increased in the late 1980s and 1990s as legislators responded to the public's "enough is enough" attitude. The result has been a decreasing national crime rate. To build on this trend, we must continue raising the odds of imprisonment, making crime less attractive for potential criminals."

Although it does point out the fact that severity also increased during the period, it doesn’t show any tangible correlation between severity and deterrence. The emphasis is put on the odds of being caught (that’s why they don’t mention the severity in the conclusion).

Here's a cute little quote from Michael Radelet (University of Colorado): "If you want to deter people from leaning on your stove, medium heat works just as well as high heat."


I don't see the relevance of the second study.

I was referring to the deterrence offered by the severity of the punishment (like in my first post)...
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

I was referring to the deterrence offered by the severity of the punishment (like in my first post)...


Well, I wasn't. I was referring to the purpose of prison, not the severity.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't see the relevance of the second study.I was referring to the deterrence offered by the severity of the punishment (like in my first post)...


the second study refers to detering crime through legalizing and licensing of concealed weapons. It has to do with the fear factor. If you fear you will be shot while jacking a car, your not likely to steal the car.

The study you pointed out has valid points, as do most independant studies on the subject, but for starters, if your not afraid of prison, then your not as afraid to get cought, especially if your life will be better and easier while inside. Just look at the repeat offenders. More convicts than you would expect, probably recomit so that they can go back, so they don't have to worry about making money, where they will sleep tonight, where they will find food.

Increasing the likely hood of being caught works well with first time offenders, but not with reoffenders, 70+% reoffend.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have to agree with msladydeath. Some of these prisoners have it better in jail than they did on the street. I would welcome more people like Joe Arapaio to be in charge of our prisons. I mean come on what use does cable tv have in rehabilitation or deterence? Alot of criminals have even been able to run their drug operations from prison so how is this limiting freedom. The only change I see in some cases is a change in location.
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
I have to agree with msladydeath. Some of these prisoners have it better in jail than they did on the street. I would welcome more people like Joe Arapaio to be in charge of our prisons. I mean come on what use does cable tv have in rehabilitation or deterence?


Holy crap don't you know anyone who has ever worked in a prison before? Hell, have you tried babysitting a kid for a week with no TV?

You ask a prison guard whether or not its easier or harder to control inmates when they don't have access to televison. Time they spend watching TV is time that they don't spend beating the crap out of each other or making the guards lives miserable. Inmates who are giving and recieving ass kickings every day, (I'm guessing here), are probably pretty tough to rehabilitate.

Most prison guards will tell you that TV is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to pacify inmates that exists. I have heard this from many County Sherriff's officers in California, who have to work as prison guards for their first few years.

As for ex-convicts that report that prison is easier than freedom, that's just a load of bung. They're either lying or trying to be tough.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
No threat of punishment will (or can) ever be a deterence to anyone except those who probably wouldn't commit the crime anyway. Why? Because people don't commit crimes with getting caught as part of the plan. It's kind of like the saying about how the "locked door keeps the honest person honest, the thief will get in anyway."

Getting caught, and therefore incarcerated, only happens when something goes wrong. Now, most of us figure that if we pulled a B & E or something, we probably wouldn't get away with it anyway, so the threat of incarceration works. On the other hand, most of us figure that as long as we don't go 10 or more MPH over the speed limit, we're not going to get pulled over.. so we do.

Justice for the convicted shouldn't be decided with "deterence" in mind, it should be decided with "justice" in mind. The one thing that both the "punishment" and "rehabilitation" sides of the issue seem to leave out of the discussion.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #20 By: greggbert - 1/31/2005 3:33:59 PM
I have to agree with msladydeath. Some of these prisoners have it better in jail than they did on the street. I would welcome more people like Joe Arapaio to be in charge of our prisons. I mean come on what use does cable tv have in rehabilitation or deterence?


Holy crap don't you know anyone who has ever worked in a prison before? Hell, have you tried babysitting a kid for a week with no TV?

You ask a prison guard whether or not its easier or harder to control inmates when they don't have access to televison. Time they spend watching TV is time that they don't spend beating the crap out of each other or making the guards lives miserable. Inmates who are giving and recieving ass kickings every day, (I'm guessing here), are probably pretty tough to rehabilitate.

Most prison guards will tell you that TV is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to pacify inmates that exists. I have heard this from many County Sherriff's officers in California, who have to work as prison guards for their first few years.

As for ex-convicts that report that prison is easier than freedom, that's just a load of bung. They're either lying or trying to be tough.


Are *you* a prison guard? Because my *best* friend is a sargent at California State Prison, Centinela (CEN). And he says the exact opposite of what your saying.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

How to deter crime. I've given this a lot of thought and yes when I lived in Phoenix I remember tent city and Sherrif Joe A. Pink underwear, green bologna sandwiches, chain gangs. Saw prisoners all the time around the city doing working tasks that no one in their "right mind" would want to do, so let the morons do it. Makes sense to me.

My idea is to build one cell and put that cell on every Main St. in America. A sign over the door says "This will be your new home when you commit crime." See where OJ, Mike Vick, and Scott Peterson live. "Your parents will be so proud of you that you finally have your own place".

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

the certainty of being caught is much more important than the severity of the sentence

Still means increasing the punishment has a deterrance effect. It just isn't so great as increasing the level of detection. It can be cheaper though (although it depends on how cushy you want to make your prisons). It is an interesting result though, since it suggests that criminals are risk lovers, even though they may be risk averse in other areas.

 

Anyway I think it's important that prison both is, and more importantly is seen to be a 'nasty' place - in that it provides the barest of necessities, but by no means is comfortable. So, no TV, for example. However educational programs are useful since they will help with rehabilitation which is also important - prison should act both to try and deter people from committing the crime in the first place, and also to then try and reduce the likelihood of them reoffending when they're released (and the vast majority of criminals will be released, even sadly those on a 'life' sentence). However removing most luxuries (with maybe a few basic ones such as 'slightly nicer food' to reward good behaviour) would hopefully help cut the cost of housing a prisoner, and at the same time increase the deterrance of prison. The danger though is that it could risk increasing lawlessness in prison, requiring increased security staff (or worse conditions) which wouldn't be desirable - e.g. I wouldn't be happy with a petty thief being maimed while in prison as a result of unlawfulness. So there is some sort of compromise to be made - maybe it does work out that tv would be a good thing after all due to the positive effect of calming inmates and it's low cost outweighing the reduced deterrance of prison (even though personally I'd see it as a luxury too far).