Take a stand. Tell us how you feel about each (or some) of the statements below. Give your reasons. Prison is a deterrent. No one is a born criminal. A person's environment makes a person what s/he is. There is more crime in the city than in the country. Criminals are sick, not evil. They should be treated as mental patients rather than caged like animals. Crime does pay. Only stupid or unlucky criminals get caught. Mandatory sentencing makes for predictable outcomes and minimizes the harm done by liberal judges. Every criminal is an individual, and not every situation is the same. Sentences should be tailored to the individual and the specifics of the crime. Since the human brain is not fully developed until the mid-to-late 20s, teenagers who commit crimes should be treated differently than older people who commit the same crime. People who kill should be killed. We can't afford to warehouse murderers. Human life is sacred and precious, even the life of someone who has murdered another.
I’ll give this a shot, with the understanding that I may later read my response and disagree with some of it. Prison is a deterrent. I think that how much of a deterrent prison is depends on what a person’s set of circumstances is. For some, their lives may be so chaotic that nothing could be worse…some have less (or more) to lose than others do. (The issue of prison conditions in this nation could be its own thread.) No one is a born criminal. A person's environment makes a person what s/he is. Nature/Nurture? Hmmmm…. There are those who have mental issues, but they are in the minority of criminals. I believe that a person’s environment sets not only the expectations for acceptable behavior, it also sets the expectations for a person’s potential in life. And while we certainly need rules so that society can “function,” careers have been built and fortunes made from behaviour that is immoral but not illegal. There is more crime in the city than in the country. I am reminded of a Sherlock Holmes episode (Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce) where they are riding a train to the countryside, and Dr. Watson makes the observation of how serene things are. Holmes points out that the sparsely populated areas have the potential to hide “a multitude of sins.” That being said, I think that crowded conditions diminish humanity, and that crime rates are measurably much higher in cities. Criminals are sick, not evil. They should be treated as mental patients rather than caged like animals. I think our penal system has a lot to be ashamed of for a purportedly 1st World nation. That being said, there are some number of people who must be locked up for the good of everyone else, because they have no moral compass and will only stop doing “the wrong thing” when a high personal cost is imposed from without. Whether or not it's their "fault" does not impact the need to protect the rest of us. Crime does pay. Only stupid or unlucky criminals get caught. Define “pay.” Most of us have a conscience. Some do not. Mandatory sentencing makes for predictable outcomes and minimizes the harm done by liberal judges. I hate mandatory sentencing. If a judge is not doing his job, (s)he needs to be removed from the bench. As it is, we have legislators meddling in the judiciary and judges legislating from the bench. Each of those systems needs to meet their duties so as to minimize the excuses each might have to do the job of the other. There is no Perfect, but there is an acceptable range of performance. Every criminal is an individual, and not every situation is the same. Sentences should be tailored to the individual and the specifics of the crime. I agree with this. But inconsistencies can lead (and have led) to discrimination…sometimes real and sometimes perceived. Since the human brain is not fully developed until the mid-to-late 20s, teenagers who commit crimes should be treated differently than older people who commit the same crime. I’d generally agree with this, unless thresholds of violence are crossed. People who kill should be killed. We can't afford to warehouse murderers. I used to agree with this. Now I do not. I don’t trust our system enough to support it taking the life of another human being. And the older I get, the less distinction I see between the citizen as a killer and the state as a killer. Revenge is not Justice. Human life is sacred and precious, even the life of someone who has murdered another. I cannot bring myself to characterize a killer as being “sacred and precious,” but all life has value. One thing that frightens me about where our nation’s judicial system is these days (other than it being politically weaponized) is that it seeks convictions more that it seeks justice. Perhaps that’s our own fault. After all, only one of those things can be measured. The other is more nuanced.
This isn't a specific thread; rather, it's about crime and punishment, which can cover a lot of things. Yes, prison can be a deterrent, but not everyone is deterred by the threat of imprisonment. Some assume that they're not going to be caught, others think the risk is worth the possibility of being jailed, and some don't care, or may not even intend to survive the crime. There are too many exceptions to accept that one's environment "makes" them choose a life of crime, but some environments are more conducive to it, while others serve to discourage these choices. But choices, they are. Considering that there are more people, living closer together, it should be no surprise that crime is more common in the city than in the country. There is also the likelihood that people in the country go to the city to commit their crimes because there are more options, there. In some cases, perhaps some are sick and not evil, while others are evil, but most just make bad choices, or choices that we don't agree with. If they feel rewarded, in some way, by these choices, they are apt to continue making them. Monetarily, yes; crime can pay, particularly when committed as an elected official or bureaucrat. While I can understand the frustration that has led some states to pass mandatory sentencing laws, in the long run, I believe we're better off allowing judges to decide each case by its own merits or demerits, and focus on getting rid of judges who are routinely in the extreme, at either end of the spectrum. I strongly agree. The woman who murders a husband who has abused her, someone who kills someone in the commission of a robber, and someone who kills because he enjoys killing are not the same, and shouldn't be treated the same. I strongly agree, although that shouldn't mean that we simply release them or give them a pass until they reach the age of 30. Some children need to be locked away, not as punishment for their crimes, but to keep everyone else safe. While there are people who I wouldn't shed any tears for, I'll hold to a consistent pro-life stance. Some lives are more precious than others, and there are people whose lives serve no discernable purpose at all, but I'll stick with a consistent pro-life stance.
My mind always goes to the Bible when discussing capital punishment or the value of one person's life versus another's. Saul of Tarsus was actively persecuting early Christians. Those Christians would have been justified in killing him in an act of self-defense, or even out of retributive justice. Yet he became the most prolific writer (or the second most, depending on how you measure it) of the New Testament. We never know what plans God has for someone's life, regardless of who (or what) they are today. There is no one more zealous (or who sees things clearer) than a convert. I try to remind myself of that.