Crime and Punishment (12 posts)
1. Crime and Punishment
Mon, Jan 18, 1999 - /EST
Gayle
I found the following poll on the net and decided to participate. I was ready to hit the Yes button because, without much prior thought, I agreed more police would be a major help in deterring crime. Yet I clicked on No, when it suddenly hit like a ton of bricks that, in the long run, education is a better answer than more police.
-------------------------
From CNN Interactive
Q: Is adding 100,000 more police nationwide the best way to cut U.S. crime further?
Yes 36% 11018 votes
No 64% 19661 votes
Total: 30679 votes
This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole.
----------------------------
My abrupt change of mind came from the vision of children purposely killing. More police on the streets are not going to keep that from happening. Teaching ethics is the only way to help cut crime, whether crime is being committed by children or adults.
This led me to wonder what all of you think about trying children as adults.
Other questions I have are about your reactions to capital punishment. Mandatory term length for drug users as opposed to murderers. From here I'll just let it go where it may.
2. A lot of potential in this thread
Mon, Jan 18, 1999 - 8:53 AM/EST
Crispus
I believe that because of the nature of our society, police can do little to prevent crime. Cops generally arrive on a scene after the fact and make arrests. Unless the crime committed is very serious, the criminals are usually back out on the street before long. If more police are hired, more arrests will undoubtedly be made, leading some to pronounce the change successful; but will crime actually be prevented?
As for drug laws, everyone knows that I am a Libertarian, so there will be no suprise when I come out against ANY drug laws except ones making them legal. I suspect that the "War on Drugs" is the reason that we have more people in prison than any other country in the world.
Finally, concerning sociopathic tykes who pop caps in their classmates: This is a pretty rare phenomenon, and I don't think it should be allowed to dictate policy. However, I do feel that many youth today are growing up with a frightening attitude toward violence, and educators should address that. Kids need to understand that it isn't cool or bad-ass to use violence to assert their independence or be accepted by their peers.
3. Legalized drugs?
Mon, Jan 18, 1999 - 11:39 AM/EST
McRostie
I agree. I'll even agree with a Libertarian in this case. Horrors! They aren't always, wrong in all instances. Criminalizing drug use has proved to be a non-productive policy except in terms of prison wardens employed and prisons built. It didn't work with Prohibition and produced the same unpleasant results .... a criminal element in society which we never totally got over. Isn't it strange that we don't see too many imprisoned over the sale of the "legal" but regulated drugs, morphine et al?
I do believe more police, properly used as in patrolling a beat instead of in a squad car, can do much to prevent crime. I remember the cop of my childhood as a friend, not as some one to control my actions. In today's world, all too often the "cops" are looked on as "government" which we want off our backs. If we have enough of them, they can be returned to the position of society helper, not controller, which is about all they can be when undermanned (or womaned as the case may be).
Gayle asked about capital punishment and mandatory sentences. I'm against both. I don't advocate killing, in retalliation or otherwise. And as to the mandatory sentence idea, I long ago gave up the idea that our Congress or Legislatures are wise enough to write a law which can equitably apply to every situation without allowing for some human intervention. The Judges need some discretion, even though on ocasion, it may be abused. Better the individual abuse of a Judge than the wholesale abuse of the law.
Is trying Children as Adults a good idea. I'm sure each state has statutory definitions as to who is an adult. Some say 13, some 10, some other ages. Since one is a child at 3, I'll suggest we allow some standard other than "child" and "adult" to control. I'll come down on the side of allowing the Judge to make the determination, subject to appeal, based on the known circumstances. I don't know a better solution.
As to Gayle's "poll", needless to say, I do think 100M additional police could cut crime further, but again, much will depend on how they are used if we want the cut to be anything other than temporary.
Regards, McRostie
4. It isn't black and white.
Mon, Jan 18, 1999 - 12:23 PM/EST
JimP
I think the poll attempts to make it black and white, but, as McRostie so aptly says, it just isn't.
First, there is the question of how they will be usedWill they be on a beat, interacting with people in the neighborhoods and presenting an image of availability rahter than control? Many of our suburban areas don't lend themselves to that kind of presence. How would the increased cops be used, and where, is a question that has to be asked, and answered.
Second, how will they be paid for? I've read (though I can't quote where) that the recent appropriation for increased police pay the cities and towns that request the funds for police training and then for their salaries for some designated period of time, like three years. After that, the jurisdictions have to take over the salaries and benefits themselves. Many of these towns aren't able to do so, and as a result, the police force is once again reduced, or the citizens must pay higher local taxes. And, if they are forced to reduce, what happens to the people who were brought on board, trained, and then down-sized?
Admittedly, there are solutions to this. But, I don't think most people, least of all Congress, has thought the process through.
5. More
Mon, Jan 18, 1999 - 3:46 PM/EST
JimP
Capital punishment - I am against it, except...
Mandatory sentences - I am against them, except...
I do not believe that capital punishment is moral, necessary, or effective as a preventer. I am, therefore, against it.
But, when that question is formed in conjunction with mandatory sentencing, I have to say that I am for one or the other, but not both, or at least not necessarily both.
I think that some crimes are of such an extreme nature that the individual who commits them must never be allowed to return to society, under any circumstances. If mandatory sentencing laws force the judge to incarcerate the person for the remainder of his/her life, without hope of parole, ever, then, under those circumstances I would want mandatory sentencing. I realize that it may be hard to define those circumstances, but no harder than defining other crimes. If I cannot be assured that the individual will NEVER return to society, then I may be in favor of capital punishment for some crimes.
Clear as mud, right?
Morally consistent? Not hardly. But, its another case in which I struggle.
6. Child/Adult
Mon, Jan 18, 1999 - 6:27 PM/EST
JimP
Now, here is another area in which my position(s) are about as solid as quicksand. In general, I do not believe children should be tried as adults. On the other hand, when does a child become an adult? I think it varies.
But, to me, before we answer the question, another has to be answered, followed by even more. First off, what is the purpose of incarceration? a) Punishment, pure and simple?
b) Rehabilitation, especially for the juvenile? c) Both?
Assuming the answer is a, when is there sufficient punishment for the crime? Does that translate to mandatory, or strict guideline sentencing?
Assuming that the answer is b, are we willing to pay the costs for the rehabilitative services required? And, who and how is it to be determined that the rehabilitation is either complete, or has progressed that the individual juvenile is able to return to society?
Assuming the answer is c) the questions for both a and b apply.
I don't see society today as being interested in rehabilitation. Oh, they say so, but their money is never put where their mouth is.
Juvenile offenders, depending on the severity of the crime, should have at least an evaluation process performed by qualified psychiatrists to determine whether the individual is likely to respond to rehabilitation. I'm assured by psychologist friends that everyone is, but I am not convinced.
So, once again, the answer is not simple. Let's keet exploring the possibilities.
Regards, Jim
If punishment is the sole answer,
7. If
Mon, Jan 18, 1999 - 10:04 PM/EST
Crispus
If the death penalty was abolished, perhaps it would be easier to try children as adults.
I don't see a reason for the death penalty. I've read a bit about it and it seems as though the entire process has become strange and secretive. If the state is ashamed to kill people, I don't think it should. The death penalty doesn't appear to serve any deterrent purpose; what good is it?
8. You're very correct,
Mon, Jan 18, 1999 - 11:08 PM/EST
JimP
as opposed to being on the right. LOL. I don't see a good reason for the death penalty either, except as I've outlined. If the state is willing to put some persons behind bars forever, making a life sentence just that, I am definitely against the death penalty.
9. HERE'S A REAL CRIME!
Tue, Jan 19, 1999 - 1:57 AM/EST
Gayle
I posted this in the Impeachment Hearings thread, but it appears not everyone visits that site, so I'm reposting it here. It should also go in the Media Responsibility thread because internet media is as much to blame as any other form of news reporting.
I found this garbage on www.newsmax.com
Inside Cover
Sunday, January 17, 8:29 AM
Congressman Reduced to Tears Over Secret Clinton Rape Evidence
Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon told the Arizona Republic it left him "nauseated". Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays told the New York Times it was "horrific". Those are just two of the on the record reactions from House members who have viewed the evidence now being kept under lock and key in D.C.'s Gerald Ford Building -- about a rape allegedly committed in 1978 by then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton.
Now Inside Cover has learned that the secret House material on the alleged rape of Jane Doe #5, a.k.a. Juanita Broaddrick, is so powerful and convincing that it actually reduced another House member -- a man -- to tears.
Thursday night, on CNBC’s "Hardball," host Chris Matthews alluded to an unnamed Representative who Matthews said was brought to tears as he reviewed the Broaddrick material.
Reached by Inside Cover Friday on Sean Hannity's WABC radio show, Matthews revealed that, "the word is it was (Rep.) Mike Castle. Check it out." Inside Cover will do just that, though Castle's office was closed at press time.
Matthews own assessment of the Juanita Broaddrick rape charge against Clinton? "I think it's believable. I think it's very credible. I know a reporter for the Washington Post who I've known for 20 years and she told me that she interviewed this woman and found her highly, in fact, totally credible." Matthews added, "Clinton sounds like a vampire."
While the White House gleefully watches as Larry Flynt and James Carville blackmail GOP Senate trial managers with insider dirt, Republicans remain reluctant to release the bombshell Broaddrick material. Matthews said Henry Hyde has decided not to introduce any evidence substantiating Broaddrick's charge at trial.
The "Hardball" host has reported in the past that Broaddrick's story was the last straw for more than a few pro-censure Republicans, who promptly reversed course and voted for impeachment. With two impeachment articles passing by a margin of five votes or less, Mr. Clinton might not be standing trial today but for the secret rape evidence against him.
Perhaps Americans will learn the closely guarded details of what brought Rep. Castle to tears and Mr. Clinton to impeachment -- after the President is acquitted by the Senate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They can sue me for copyright infringement for lifting that piece if they want, but people like this just never quit with the muck and shouldn't be allowed to get away with it!
Assassination is immoral and illegal. So why is character assassination seen to be any different? It's a dirty little game people play, without any thought as to the hurt and outcome. I find these gameplayers to be the lowest form of humanity.
Had any of this been true, it should and would have been in the Starr Report to add weight to the flimsy charges.
10. A fourth reason for incarceration?
Tue, Jan 19, 1999 - 4:34 AM/EST
Tyler
Just to add to Jim's list of 3 reasons for incarceration (sp?) from post 6:
d) Revenge / Retaliation
This seems to me to be an entirely different motive than punishment or rehabilitation. This seems to be an all too common motive for people to cry out in support of the death penalty. It is also a common motive behind the call for ten, eleven, and twelve-year olds to be tried as adults. "Look what that kid did! He just killed 3 people. They should lower the age for the death penalty" Although I am exaggerating, this type of attitude unfortunately seems to be prevalent in our society today.
11. Gayle, have faith
Tue, Jan 19, 1999 - 1:26 PM/EST
JimP
in the widom of the common people.
I believe that most people are able to distinguish what is solid, what is tenuous at best, and that which is pure BS.
In media responsibility, we have discussed censorship some, and I know that the nation doesn't want to state flat out that the kind of stuff in that article can not be published without substantiation. Of course, there are libel laws to exact a tension between what is published and what is true. I don't know enough about the law to be able to comment, but I assume that's why they are there.
In the meantime, I do believe that people can differentiate between good reporting and trash talking.
12. Never censorship...
Tue, Jan 19, 1999 - 1:46 PM/EST
Gayle
but I feel there should be a balance attempted by the traditional newscasters. It seems they should dispell these things with fact, not ignore them or give them only two seconds in passing.
I don't agree with all the frivilous suits that are brought today, but in the case of the Clinton's I hope they have enough to go after every detractor and win.
