Do Laws Deter Crime? Education vs Fear

[TheStatutoryApe]

Education only goes so far. You can NOT force someone to learn something. You can force them to go to school, you can force them to sit through classes, you can even force them to repeat grades until they pass (do they even still do that anymore?) but you can NOT force them to learn. Or if they do learn, to apply it appropriately. All you can do is expose them to it and hope some of it sinks in; it rarely does. Not that there isn't room for improvement in our educational system. While we cannot reasonably expect to reach all of the student population, we can doubtless do things to encourage more interest. We'll always have a large, undereducated populace, however. It's the human condition.

Laws only seem to go so far in getting people not to commit crimes against each other. I believe it has already been studied and established that the role of punishment to make an example as prevention is negligible. People who do not commit crimes because of the law are people living in fear. If they lose that fear, for any reason, then they will commit crimes. Do you think inducing fear as a means of preventing crime is a preferable solution? Or do you think that educating people and making sure that they have an acceptable standard of living would be preferable?

 

[Evo]

I think laws concerning crimes are a huge detriment to crime. Anyone have any statistics to back up their claims that fear of punishment by enforcement of laws is not a significant detriment? I know I personally don't break a lot of laws because I don't want to suffer the consequences. That's called making an intelligent decision in my book. Most people obey laws because they can weigh the pros and cons in a rational manner.

If people could steal, vandalize, murder, etc.. with no consequences, are you saying that this would not affect how they behave? I believe most rational people DO restrain themselves because they realize the satisfaction of kicking in the car door of that jerk in the parking lot that blocked them in isn't worth the legal consequences. I can't believe people are claiming that laws aren't a detriment to crime.

 

[Jasongreat]

I think laws concerning crimes are a huge detriment to crime. Anyone have any statistics to back up their claims that fear of punishment by enforcement of laws is not a significant detriment? I know I personally don't break a lot of laws because I don't want to suffer the consequences. That's called making an intelligent decision in my book. Most people obey laws because they can weigh the pros and cons in a rational manner.

If people could steal, vandalize, murder, etc.. with no consequences, are you saying that this would not affect how they behave? I believe most rational people DO restrain themselves because they realize the satisfaction of kicking in the car door of that jerk in the parking lot that blocked them in isn't worth the legal consequences. I can't believe people are claiming that laws aren't a detriment to crime.

I personally don't break laws because I don't believe that behaviour is right, not because there is a law against it. I don't need a law to tell me that killing my neighbor is wrong.
You wanted stats so you got them:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm"

Nobody is saying we don't need consequences in society. I think after you check out the stats provided you might find that consequences arent all you think they are.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think laws concerning crimes are a huge detriment to crime. Anyone have any statistics to back up their claims that fear of punishment by enforcement of laws is not a significant detriment? I know I personally don't break a lot of laws because I don't want to suffer the consequences. That's called making an intelligent decision in my book. Most people obey laws because they can weigh the pros and cons in a rational manner.

If people could steal, vandalize, murder, etc.. with no consequences, are you saying that this would not affect how they behave? I believe most rational people DO restrain themselves because they realize the satisfaction of kicking in the car door of that jerk in the parking lot that blocked them in isn't worth the legal consequences. I can't believe people are claiming that laws aren't a detriment to crime.

First, the part I underlined, please rethink that and let me know if you really don't steal and kill people and such because it is against the law rather than a personal educated belief that it would probably be wrong to do such things.

I think that laws and punishment reduce crime primarily by removing the people who commit crimes from society or reducing their ability to commit the crime again. You'll also find that the vast majority of criminals are poor and under educated and that areas that are wealthy and have access to better education have much less crime.

While laws and punishment certainly have an effect they are not necessarily the best deterrents.


edit: thank you Evo

 

[Evo]

First, the part I underlined, please rethink that and let me know if you really don't steal and kill people and such because it is against the law rather than a personal educated belief that it would probably be wrong to do such things.

I'll have to take the fifth on that one.

I think that laws and punishment reduce crime primarily by removing the people who commit crimes from society or reducing their ability to commit the crime again. You'll also find that the vast majority of criminals are poor and under educated and that areas that are wealthy and have access to better education have much less crime.

Wealthy people have more to lose and therefore would be more hesitant to break a law and have the things they love taken away from them. This tends to make them more law abiding.

While laws and punishment certainly have an effect they are not necessarily the best deterrents.

[/quote]I was reading about the punishment for theft in a middle eastern country. First offense for stealing, you had a hand cut off. Very effective in reducing theft.

 

[Evo]

I personally don't break laws because I don't believe that behaviour is right, not because there is a law against it. I don't need a law to tell me that killing my neighbor is wrong.
You wanted stats so you got them:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm"

Nobody is saying we don't need consequences in society. I think after you check out the stats provided you might find that consequences arent all you think they are.

These are about people that already decided to ignore laws. We have no idea how many crimes were never commited at all because of laws, I would guess the number is huge.

 

[Bratticus]

I'll have to take the fifth on that one.

Wealthy people have more to lose and therefore would be more hesitant to break a law and have the things they love taken away from them. This tends to make them more law abiding.

I was reading about the punishment for theft in a middle eastern country. First offense for stealing, you had a hand cut off. Very effective in reducing theft.[/QUOTE]

Ok, now I am shocked. I do not steal, rape, murder, torture, willfully destroy property, abuse animals, or drive like an idiot, etc.. for one reason only. I think it is rude and disrestectful. Fear of punishment has nothing to do with it, I have nothing to fear, because I am not comitting any crimes, nor do I plan to in the future.

Cutting of people hands, huh...and here I thought we lived in a civilised society, where that kind of brutalisation of people was not practised... did you check what happens to a woman when she gets raped? She gets jailed or killed. Especially, since in those countries a womans statement carries only half the weight of a mans statement.

Personally, I would tell anyone that approves of such laws to go live there. I know, I do not want to. My forebears actually payed attention during the age of enlightenment and were nice enough to pass their values on to their progeny.

Intelligent and peaceful discussion beats threats anytime (Imho). You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

As for your apartment situation... I do not know if you own or rent, but either way, something has to give. I you can not reach a reasonable compromise with your neighbors, you will either have to chose to move/sell, or force them to move/sell.

By the way, which one of you was in the building first?

 

[Bratticus]

It works very well in saudi arabia. You can drop your purse on a steet and every passer-by is deathly afraid of touching it.

"Crimes of Hudud include theft, drinking of alcohol, defamation of Islam, fornication, and adultery. Persons found guilty of theft are punished by payment of fines, imprisonment, or amputation of the right hand. (The left hand is amputated if the right has already been amputated.)"

I don't get what you are getting at SA. Laws include codes for punishment. They are not disjoint.

And what are the laws governing the female part of your population?

If the only thing that keeps a person from murdering another person is the fear of punishment, than that person is in dire need of help. That fear will only go so far, add a trigger that removes the fear of getting caught, and then what... have at it as long as no one knows.

Or perhaps join a terrorist group? They can give you reasons why other do not deserve to live... througout history, faith has been the favorite banner of people that are powerhungry and want to befuddle the masses.

Used to be they gave people a choice, jo to jail or go in the army, that way if you get lucky and go to a war, you can be yourself without fear of punishent.

Sorry, i think laws keep honest folk honest (which they would be withou the laws as well).

Anytime you have people flock together you find rules of conduct, so the society can funtion. A pack of wolves has rules. Punishment was meted out to keep people in line. People apparently were not occupied primarily with killing each other before there were laws.

Crime statistics rise during recessions, because more people are living at poverty level... and throughout the agent, a parent will do what needs done to feed his/her brood.

You have people living in the welfare system for generations. why? what keeps them from extricating themselves?

Laws to not deter crime, they punish the offenders, so law abiding citizens do not take the law in their own hands and simly lynch the offender.

 

[Cyrus]

If you want a serious answer to your question, then you should look into books on criminology. This book was used when I took a coures on it as an undergrad and has good statistics and studies.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/1412956838/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'll have to take the fifth on that one.

Wealthy people have more to lose and therefore would be more hesitant to break a law and have the things they love taken away from them. This tends to make them more law abiding.

I was reading about the punishment for theft in a middle eastern country. First offense for stealing, you had a hand cut off. Very effective in reducing theft.

I am certain that people often feel the desire to break the law, maybe even become so enraged that they feel as though they would like to kill someone, but is it really likely that a fear of punishment is what makes a person continually make the law abiding decision? Fear may work in many or even most instances but eventually many people lose or disregard that fear. People who are particularly poor often wind up with "nothing left to lose" and so do not care about the consequences. Many wealthy people wind up feeling "above the law" and do not believe the consequences apply to them. People who break the law, break away from the fear of the law, just once will often wind up disregarding the law again and again.

People who are educated and/or have a sense of community are less likely to break the law. Is it because they fear the consequences? or because they understand the consequences? We can not only look at punishment as the consequence of committing a crime, there are many other consequences as well including the manner in which you will be perceived by others for your actions among other things. An educated person is generally more capable of critically analyzing their actions, realizing the consequences, and weighing the cost vs benefit. People who are community oriented tend to be more conscientious of the effect of their actions on other people and their community. It seems to me that the number of deterring factors when one considers the consequences of ones actions go far beyond mere punishment and when you look at the average criminal they tend to lack for any other deterrent than punishment.

These are about people that already decided to ignore laws. We have no idea how many crimes were never commited at all because of laws, I would guess the number is huge.

The idea behind the law in a democratic society is that it is a social contract between its members. People are agreeing to abide by these rules out of respect for one another and the cohesion and safety of their community. So in the vast majority of cases of 'laws not being broken' I think we can safely say it is due to the 'agreement' of law over the 'deterrent' of punishment. Just how many people are effectively deterred by prescribed punishment is hard to say though.

 

[Hel]

I think the laws are a deterrent. Well actually, not so much the laws themselves but the enforcement.

That is, I generally prefer cops not initiating conversations with me.

In a town near where I live, picking a sign off the sidewalk while taking a stroll and moving it out of the way will get you pulled over. Apparently picking it up is stealing, and moving it out of the way is litter. Go figure.
Anyways, I don't pick up signs off the sidewalk anymore. Unless I have a nice t-shirt that says "volunteer" and am picking up litter.

Even though this is a real example, I concede it is a bit ridiculous. Still, the law is the reason I use my turn signal even on bicycles, don't bicycle at night without a light, don't jaywalk, don't torrent copyrighted stuff illegally, don't hack on any site but hackthissite.com... etc.

Sure... not everybody's deterred, but it does work on some people. (I know I'm not the only one!)
So yes, the laws are a deterrent, just not as effective on everybody for everything.

 

[Quincy]

Laws are made by the corrupt and powerful, who make the laws to favor themselves and keep lower-class people in control...

 

[Jasongreat]

These are about people that already decided to ignore laws. We have no idea how many crimes were never commited at all because of laws, I would guess the number is huge.

Right not only did the "deterent" not stop them the first time, for 67% or so it didn't even deter them the second or third time.

The stats you want are impossible, how would you ever find that number? If they didnt commit a crime what statistic are they a part of? I guess we could do a national survey of all non-criminal citizens and ask pointed questions in order to get the answer you seek. I personally don't think many people would say that they would kill their neighbor if it wasnt against the law(you might be the exception after reading about the "fun" youve been having with your neighbors though). I guess your speculation is as good as gold though.

 

[Jasongreat]

I think the laws are a deterrent. Well actually, not so much the laws themselves but the enforcement.

That is, I generally prefer cops not initiating conversations with me.

In a town near where I live, picking a sign off the sidewalk while taking a stroll and moving it out of the way will get you pulled over. Apparently picking it up is stealing, and moving it out of the way is litter. Go figure.
Anyways, I don't pick up signs off the sidewalk anymore. Unless I have a nice t-shirt that says "volunteer" and am picking up litter.

Even though this is a real example, I concede it is a bit ridiculous. Still, the law is the reason I use my turn signal even on bicycles, don't bicycle at night without a light, don't jaywalk, don't torrent copyrighted stuff illegally, don't hack on any site but hackthissite.com... etc.

Sure... not everybody's deterred, but it does work on some people. (I know I'm not the only one!)
So yes, the laws are a deterrent, just not as effective on everybody for everything.

I guess you have never heard the quote that the government should be afraid of its citizens, the citizens shouldn't be afraid of their government.

 

[Hel]

I am certain that people often feel the desire to break the law, maybe even become so enraged that they feel as though they would like to kill someone, but is it really likely that a fear of punishment is what makes a person continually make the law abiding decision?

I forgot to say in my last post: Law is a deterrent, but not nearly as effective as other deterrents that you mentioned in your post.

As for trying to determine how many people would do something if it weren't against the law, I suppose looking at Holland might be an idea, as many things are legal there that aren't legal elsewhere. On the other hand, Holland has a high literacy rate and other factors that could throw the results.

I guess you have never heard the quote that the government should be afraid of its citizens, the citizens shouldn't be afraid of their government.

I have heard it. I'm not afraid of law enforcement officers: I've been protected by them more times than I've been accosted by them. Still I'd prefer to be the one to initiate any interaction.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This post was apparently deleted but I don't see anything objectionable about this part of it so I will go ahead and respond.

I don't get what you are getting at SA. Laws include codes for punishment. They are not disjoint.

I am only suggesting that there are different ideas at work behind law and punishment than we may usually consider and that it effects the manner in which we treat the subject of crime deterrence, sometimes detrimentally. Also I did not pick the thread title but it works well enough.

Law, as I noted in my last post, is an agreement not a deterrent. Punishment can be a deterrent but I do not think that is the best and logical means of perceiving it. Traditionally it has definitely been seen as a deterrent and generally wielded as one by most governments and rulers. But we no longer live in a society based on a philosophy that a ruler or a ruling class should have the power to threaten force to keep the unwashed masses in line. Instead, in a modern democratic society, the sentence for a crime has become an agreement between its members as to the proper means of handling those who transgress the agreed upon rules. You are sentenced to pay fines not so much as a deterrent but as restitution. You are sentenced to prison to remove you from society and take away your ability to commit further crimes while hopefully making you rethink your decision.

If you look at crime prevention/deterrence strategies used in the US punishments are rarely a primary element. Educating people about the effects of crimes has become the favoured approach in most cases.

 

[Sorry!]

The capital punishment does NOT serve as a deterent... that's a punishment utilized by the legal system for very specific crimes...

Some laws definitely serve to deter the average person though. For isntance laws on the road. I do not think that the legal system is in place to instill fear in the population though. I don't think that just because you listen to something that the reason you do so is automatically fear...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think the laws are a deterrent. Well actually, not so much the laws themselves but the enforcement.

That is, I generally prefer cops not initiating conversations with me.

In a town near where I live, picking a sign off the sidewalk while taking a stroll and moving it out of the way will get you pulled over. Apparently picking it up is stealing, and moving it out of the way is litter. Go figure.
Anyways, I don't pick up signs off the sidewalk anymore. Unless I have a nice t-shirt that says "volunteer" and am picking up litter.

Even though this is a real example, I concede it is a bit ridiculous. Still, the law is the reason I use my turn signal even on bicycles, don't bicycle at night without a light, don't jaywalk, don't torrent copyrighted stuff illegally, don't hack on any site but hackthissite.com... etc.

Sure... not everybody's deterred, but it does work on some people. (I know I'm not the only one!)
So yes, the laws are a deterrent, just not as effective on everybody for everything.

Laws are made by the corrupt and powerful, who make the laws to favor themselves and keep lower-class people in control...

The law is certainly still used improperly and some people use it as a means of exercising control and power over others but philosophically and logically they do not really work when applied in this fashion. There are some really steep fines for littering where I live but such a significant number of people are not deterred by it that there is still a major problem and they keep blindly raising the fines apparently figuring that will help even though it obviously does not.

DUIs are probably the best example of punishment as a deterrent that does not work. The vast majority of people have no idea what the punishment for receiving a DUI is but somehow always think that it must not be strict enough and so always support stronger punishments. The people most active in pushing stricter legislation for drunk driving are MADD, people whose children have died in alcohol related accidents. Obviously these people are very upset and on a crusade. Their main purpose seems to be to get back at drunk drivers, not preventing drunk driving. If they really wanted to prevent drunk driving they would see that the all of their hard work at making sure drunk drivers are punished as harshly as possible has not had very much effect. There is a near 100% recidivism rate among drunk drivers though many people may not actually be caught more than once. When I received a DUI and went through the DUI program they made no bones about telling us that most likely every single one of us that were there would wind up drinking and driving again. L.A. is currently having such a major problem with people getting multiple DUIs that they have created a special task force for no other purpose than to follow around people with multiple DUIs to make sure that they are abiding their probation/parole.
The problem with DUI punishments are that they can totally ruin a persons life, and people who are stressed out and have their life messed up are highly likely to continue drinking and making stupid decisions.

 

[Cyrus]

I see way too many posts that are highly opinionated when actual data exists to make factual statements......

 

[Pengwuino]

I'd speed/j-walk/carry weapons/do... "pranks" to people... if they all weren't against the law. This argument should toss out anything that has to do with like, rape or murder. Only an extreme minority of people actually see the punishments of such crimes and think "I'd do it if it weren't for the punishment...". That is, if rape became legal, only sociopaths would do it when normally they wouldn't.

Let's get realistic though... if your boss is a douchebag and you feel he got someone fired because he would get a promotion for it, would you possibly vandalize his car if it weren't illegal? Maybe even steal or rob him to "make things right"? Maybe you're one of these anti-corporate fanatics (which aren't rare, look at this forum!)... stealing isn't legal... god only knows what could come of them. Look at the whole mp3 nonsense about stealing music. Millions of songs are essentially stolen because people basically know they won't face punishments which is the same as it being legal, despite our typical education saying that stealing, even minor, is wrong. And before people get out of hand with this, I am excluding people who actually do get a song who then purchase the actual song.

I can think up numerous situations where I'd commit what are currently considered crimes if they were no longer crimes. Hell, and I'm a very law-abiding, moral citizen. Imagine most other people...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some laws definitely serve to deter the average person though. For isntance laws on the road. I do not think that the legal system is in place to instill fear in the population though. I don't think that just because you listen to something that the reason you do so is automatically fear...

In my experience few people are deterred by traffic laws, they are broken almost religiously. The only people I have known to be sure to follow traffic laws are people who agree with them and get angry when others do not follow them.

Note, if you agree with a law or agree to abide by the law that is not really being 'deterred'. Generally speaking, those that are in fact deterred by the law are those that fear the punishment.

 

[Pengwuino]

In my experience few people are deterred by traffic laws, they are broken almost religiously. The only people I have known to be sure to follow traffic laws are people who agree with them and get angry when others do not follow them.

:rofl: The only reason I don't speed is the pain in the behind that I have to go through to show the court I did my traffic school. I guess that doesn't count as 'punishment' though :).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'd speed/j-walk/carry weapons/do... "pranks" to people... if they all weren't against the law. This argument should toss out anything that has to do with like, rape or murder. Only an extreme minority of people actually see the punishments of such crimes and think "I'd do it if it weren't for the punishment...". That is, if rape became legal, only sociopaths would do it when normally they wouldn't.

Let's get realistic though... if your boss is a douchebag and you feel he got someone fired because he would get a promotion for it, would you possibly vandalize his car if it weren't illegal? Maybe even steal or rob him to "make things right"? Maybe you're one of these anti-corporate fanatics (which aren't rare, look at this forum!)... stealing isn't legal... god only knows what could come of them. Look at the whole mp3 nonsense about stealing music. Millions of songs are essentially stolen because people basically know they won't face punishments which is the same as it being legal, despite our typical education saying that stealing, even minor, is wrong. And before people get out of hand with this, I am excluding people who actually do get a song who then purchase the actual song.

I can think up numerous situations where I'd commit what are currently considered crimes if they were no longer crimes. Hell, and I'm a very law-abiding, moral citizen. Imagine most other people...

Do you think that many people don't do these things? I see jaywalkers and speeders every single day. Sometimes I have to dodge crazy gansta looking dudes who stroll across the street in the middle of midday traffic because they think they are much cooler and more powerful than a speeding car. Theft, especially petty theft, happens all the time. Vandalism, I see graffiti almost everywhere I go except the nice neighbourhoods where people mostly confine their vandalism to keying peoples cars.

The law, seriously, is not much of a deterrent for just about everything you mention. And about rape... go to any country where women have few if any rights and check out the rape statistics.

 

[Bratticus]

The capital punishment does NOT serve as a deterent... that's a punishment utilized by the legal system for very specific crimes...

Some laws definitely serve to deter the average person though. For isntance laws on the road. I do not think that the legal system is in place to instill fear in the population though. I don't think that just because you listen to something that the reason you do so is automatically fear...

Imho capitalpunishment is government sanctioned murder.

Driving laws are not for crime prevention, they are for the protection of the rest of the population. Traffic violations are not crimes. What we see as a "traffic crime" would be killing someone while driving intoxicated. However, the crime in that case is vehicular manslaughter.

If crime in certain areas spirals out of control, there is an underlying reason for that. Crimes tend to be more prevalent in densely populated areas. If you live in crowded conditions, most likely you will have a shorter fuse. We are not nearly as far removed from our animalk heritage as we would like to believe. When someone invades our space (hunting grounds) continually we exhibit stress symptoms, and depending on the temperament and social conditioning of the individual we will lash out... with words, and sometimes worse.

Laws are guidelines. Punishment without education creates hostility.

Many people think that crowded prisons are ok and they deserve what they got. If you treat people withou dignity, how do you expect the to see that their way was wrong? You are doing the same thing they did. You took their freedom and now they are at your mercy.

Keep in mind, that more and more children are growing up in poverty. The gap between rich and poor gets wider with each passing generation. Social awareness and social thinking usually is frowned upon and belittled.

If you leave a child without education, growing up in a disrespectful environment, you are laying the foundation for future transgressions. All the laws in the world will not help you once you condition a person to think of nothing put the survival of the fittest (or strongest).

Some groups have started mentoring programs, and they appear to work. A lot of youngsters are in single parent households or in household where both parents have to work. Left to their own devices, a child will not learn proper social behavior.

Prevention begins with education at a young age. If mistreated, a child will grow up to mistreat others, because that is what they learned.

For many adult offenders it may be too late, so the sensible approach would be to educate children and eliminate poverty. Hunger annd despair does not beget social graces.

No, punishment is not a deterrent, it is a result of things that could have been prevented.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

:rofl: The only reason I don't speed is the pain in the behind that I have to go through to show the court I did my traffic school. I guess that doesn't count as 'punishment' though :).

Apparently that speeding law and the theoretical fine did not deter you so much until after experimentation proved it to be pretty annoying huh? ;-p

 

[Pengwuino]

Do you think that many people don't do these things? I see jaywalkers and speeders every single day. Sometimes I have to dodge crazy gansta looking dudes who stroll across the street in the middle of midday traffic because they think they are much cooler and more powerful than a speeding car. Theft, especially petty theft, happens all the time. Vandalism, I see graffiti almost everywhere I go except the nice neighbourhoods where people mostly confine their vandalism to keying peoples cars.

That's not the point. I'm saying that imagine if laws didn't exist, I argue we'd see a massive jump in crimes from people who don't do crimes because it's illegal right now. I focus much more on the mid-level crimes, not petty theft or rape or murder. I'm talking about crimes where the chances of being caught aren't negligable and the punishments arent so great as to dominate in some sort of... risk vs. reward ratio.

Apparently that speeding law and the theoretical fine did not deter you so much until after experimentation proved it to be pretty annoying huh? ;-p

Oddly enough though, it was the inconvenience with the bureaucracy that was the deterrent, not the actual fine. Maybe the idea needs to be to make commiting crimes such a pain that people don't commit crimes out of sheer annoyance! It's amazing how people will sacrifice so much just to avoid a small inconvenience!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's not the point. I'm saying that imagine if laws didn't exist, I argue we'd see a massive jump in crimes from people who don't do crimes because it's illegal right now. I focus much more on the mid-level crimes, not petty theft or rape or murder. I'm talking about crimes where the chances of being caught aren't negligable and the punishments arent so great as to dominate in some sort of... risk vs. reward ratio.

I'm not saying that if we got rid of all laws that there would be no effect on crime. I'm just saying that it is not the main point of laws to deter crime and that even the degree to which they do deter crime is minimal when compared to other crime prevention strategies.
The point of the law, in modern democratic society, is to codify an agreed upon set of rules for members of society to live and operate by. As I noted earlier if you are party to the law, by definition, you can not be 'deterred' by it.

Oddly enough though, it was the inconvenience with the bureaucracy that was the deterrent, not the actual fine. Maybe the idea needs to be to make commiting crimes such a pain that people don't commit crimes out of sheer annoyance! It's amazing how people will sacrifice so much just to avoid a small inconvenience!

Ah, great idea. We should have our law makers read The Trial for inspiration!

 

[Borek]

I can't believe people are claiming that laws aren't a detriment to crime.

It is not laws, it is their enforcement that works. In Polish it is usually stated as "not the punishment, but its inevitability". For sure there will be always people that will steal/kill/whatever no matter the punishment and its inevitability.

Then, for me it is "don't do to others what you don't want to be done to you" that is enough. Call it personal preference.

 

[skeptic2]

Laws do not deter crime, they define the crimes. The punishments are supposed to deter crimes.

But punishments do not seem very effective in preventing crimes. I believe this is because lawbreakers hold at least one of two beliefs non-lawbreakers do not.

The first is the belief they won't get caught. If one is convinced he won't get caught, punishments lose their deterrence value.

The second is that even if they know they may get caught they commit the crime anyway because they feel justified in the committing the crime. I think if you talk to wife beaters or even murderers you will hear them say that the object of their attack "deserved it".

Perhaps the law that most of us break the most is speeding. Why do we speed? I think it's either because we believe we won't get caught or that we're late and need to speed (justification) or that the limits are set unrealistically low (justification). There really is no difference between breaking a little law and breaking a big law except perhaps that law abiders may be better able to assess the risk versus reward better than lawbreakers.

 

[russ_watters]

I was reading about the punishment for theft in a middle eastern country. First offense for stealing, you had a hand cut off. Very effective in reducing theft.

Ok, now I am shocked. I do not steal, rape, murder, torture, willfully destroy property, abuse animals, or drive like an idiot, etc.. for one reason only. I think it is rude and disrestectful. Fear of punishment has nothing to do with it, I have nothing to fear, because I am not comitting any crimes, nor do I plan to in the future.

I don't steal because it is wrong, but if there were no speed limits, I'd certainly drive faster than I do now.

We're not the right people to be having this discussion, though. Clearly there are people who steal, punishment or otherwise and it stands to reason that like me breaking the speed limit laws, if there were no laws/punishment against stealing, there would be another class of people who would steal if there were no consequences to that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't steal because it is wrong, but if there were no speed limits, I'd certainly drive faster than I do now.

We're not the right people to be having this discussion, though. Clearly there are people who steal, punishment or otherwise and it stands to reason that like me breaking the speed limit laws, if there were no laws/punishment against stealing, there would be another class of people who would steal if there were no consequences to that.

Punishment by the law is only one of a myriad of potential consequences to doing something illegal. Things are illegal for a reason, they are not illegal because you will be punished for doing them.

So if the people of your community got together and decided that there would be a certain speed limit for the roads without any express or implied punishment for exceeding that speed limit would you disregard the limit?

And if so do you currently never speed? Or do you maybe just go over the speed limit only a little? And maybe sometimes more than just a little depending on the circumstances? (I promise not to turn you in Russ!)

 

[russ_watters]

Punishment by the law is only one of a myriad of potential consequences to doing something illegal.

True.

Things are illegal for a reason, they are not illegal because you will be punished for doing them.

That doesn't make sense, so I guess I'll have to agree!

Yeah, things are not illegal because you will be punished for doing them, you are punished for doing them because they are illegal!

So if the people of your community got together and decided that there would be a certain speed limit for the roads without any express or implied punishment for exceeding that speed limit would you disregard the limit?

Probably, yes.

I'm not sure if you've ever driven on a military base, but people don't break the speed limits on military bases - not even by 1 or 2 mph. Why? Because speed limits are precisely enforced on military bases.

People tend to drive as fast as they can get away with.

And if so do you currently never speed? Or do you maybe just go over the speed limit only a little? And maybe sometimes more than just a little depending on the circumstances? (I promise not to turn you in Russ!)

I tend to drive as fast as I think I can get away with.

 

[junglebeast]

Do you think inducing fear as a means of preventing crime is a preferable solution? Or do you think that educating people and making sure that they have an acceptable standard of living would be preferable?

Everyone has their own opinions about what is right and wrong...and they are not the same. there are many illegal activities that I have no desire to partake in, such as murder or armed robbery or hardcore drug use, and fear of the law has no real effect on me...except possibly in the case of self defense, where I might hesitate to defend myself or someone else due to fear of a failure in the justice system to protect me.

However there are many other laws that I do not agree with, or do not care about too much. For exampling, speeding. If there were no risk of being pulled over by a cop, I would often speed, because I feel safe driving at a higher speed most of the time. In order to keep people consistently following all the rules in a society, fear of punishment is the only means of preventing crime (and by crime, I mean violation of laws).

 

[Evo]

Right not only did the "deterent" not stop them the first time, for 67% or so it didn't even deter them the second or third time.

The stats you want are impossible, how would you ever find that number? If they didnt commit a crime what statistic are they a part of? I guess we could do a national survey of all non-criminal citizens and ask pointed questions in order to get the answer you seek. I personally don't think many people would say that they would kill their neighbor if it wasnt against the law(you might be the exception after reading about the "fun" youve been having with your neighbors though). I guess your speculation is as good as gold though.

That's exactly my point. You cannot claim that laws are not a successful deterrent to crime because you don't know and you have no way of knowing. You cannot look at studies on repeat criminal offenders to back up your claim because these are people that, for whatever reason, have decided that they are willing to risk breaking the law to do what they want. This is not representative of society as a whole.

I guess a good way to determine if laws deter crime is to look back in history to times when there was little in the way of enforced laws and look at what happened.

It is not laws, it is their enforcement that works.

For this discussion, we will consider "laws" to mean "enforced laws". Also, people are getting sidetracked into discussing the effectiveness of punishment in rehabilitating criminals, that's a completely different discussion.

 

[skeptic2]

Things are illegal for a reason, they are not illegal because you will be punished for doing them.

Generally this is true however there are some pretty stupid laws on the books. I remember reading about store owners getting together and pressuring the city council to lower the speed limits so drivers passing their stores could better read their signs.

So if the people of your community got together and decided that there would be a certain speed limit for the roads without any express or implied punishment for exceeding that speed limit would you disregard the limit?

That depends upon why they decided to set the limit where they did (see above). It also depends upon whether I was one who voted for it or not.

And if so do you currently never speed? Or do you maybe just go over the speed limit only a little? And maybe sometimes more than just a little depending on the circumstances? (I promise not to turn you in Russ!)

I recently came back from a trip to Mexico. On the open highway speed limits are rarely enforced and if you do get a ticket the fines are in the range of $10. The speed limit on the 4 lane divided highway I was on was 90 km/hr or about 55 mph. I drove it at 75 mph. True, I was over the speed limit but I wasn't driving faster than I drive on the interstates around where I live.

[Note: I believed a wouldn't get caught, I didn't, and felt justified because the limit was so low.]