Do Laws Deter Crime? Education vs Fear

[f95toli]

There is actually quite a lot of relevant research available that can at least in principle answer that questions (although that research is of course always ignored in the public debate).

As far as I understand it is depends on the type crime. When it comes to "minor crimes" such as speeding we are deterred by the fact that we might get caught and punished.
For minor crimes there is indeed some correlation between deterrent and the severity of the punishment.

However, that correlation breaks down for serious crimes such as murder and rape. There is no research that shows any clear correlation between the "willingness" to commit a crime and the severity of the punishment once you pass a certain point; for the potential perpetrator it does not really matter if he/she would spend 10 or 50 years in prison if caught. This is probably partly because the risk of getting caught simply does not enter into the equation at all, either because it is not a planned crime or because the perpetrator believes that he/she will not get caught.
Another factor is that for for most people 10 years is already such a long time that it becomes quite abstract; you can't imagine being away even that long, nor who you would be when you get out.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Or compare crime rates between countries with lax laws and those with draconian laws. Consider Singapore.

 

[skeptic2]

There is actually quite a lot of relevant research available that can at least in principle answer that questions (although that research is of course always ignored in the public debate).

As far as I understand it is depends on the type crime. When it comes to "minor crimes" such as speeding we are deterred by the fact that we might get caught and punished.
For minor crimes there is indeed some correlation between deterrent and the severity of the punishment.

However, that correlation breaks down for serious crimes such as murder and rape. There is no research that shows any clear correlation between the "willingness" to commit a crime and the severity of the punishment once you pass a certain point; for the potential perpetrator it does not really matter if he/she would spend 10 or 50 years in prison if caught. This is probably partly because the risk of getting caught simply does not enter into the equation at all, either because it is not a planned crime or because the perpetrator believes that he/she will not get caught.
Another factor is that for for most people 10 years is already such a long time that it becomes quite abstract; you can't imagine being away even that long, nor who you would be when you get out.

If this is true, why do far more people speed than commit murder or rape? I believe a far higher percentage of murderers and rapists are caught and prosecuted than are motorists who speed.

 

[f95toli]

If this is true, why do far more people speed than commit murder or rape? I believe a far higher percentage of murderers and rapists are caught and prosecuted than are motorists who speed.

Probably mainly because speeding doesn't carry the same social stigma as murder and rape. Also, I did not say there was a STRONG correlation; but stricter punishments (e.g. losing your license as opposed to just paying a small fine) for a crime liked speeding will -up to a point- deter people from doing it.

Also, while it is true that a higher percent of serious crimes are solved that seems to be largely irrelevant for whether or not we commit them (there are of course some exceptions, e.g. during a war).
One should not make the mistake of assuming that we humans are rational when dealing with issues like this. My guess is that it is extremely rare that someone who is planning to commit serious crime actually performs some form of rational risk assessment (comparing risk with potential benefit) before deciding whether or not to go ahead.

 

[CFDFEAGURU]

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

I think that only applies to the banking laws. LOL

Sorry couldn't resist.

Thanks
Matt

 

[Vanadium 50]

In my experience few people are deterred by traffic laws, they are broken almost religiously.

I think you're exaggerating. Yes, not everyone follows the traffic laws all the time. But you don't see people driving on the wrong side of the road often, or stopping for green and going for red, etc. I think you'll have to agree that even the total jerks follow the traffic laws most of the time.

It seems to me that neither extreme is correct - is it true that laws (actually, skeptic2 is correct - laws define crimes and punishments deter them) deter all crimes? Obviously not, because we still have crimes. Do they deter no crimes? I don't think that's quite as obviously false, but I still think it's false.

 

[Jasongreat]

Now that I think about it maybe a lot of people do choose not to commit crimes because of the law, since everytime something major happens and the cops can't keep order we see riots and plunder. Maybe it is that belief that we should discuss, what happens when people who are only following the law because of the deterent of punishment, find that that law no longer exsists? Now what would happen when people that believe the action defined in the law is wrong and then that law disappears? If the majority of people are in the former group we have anarchy, if the majority belongs to the latter we still have order even though their is no law. Now let's look at which belief is more easily corruptable. Is it easier to justify away an outside force, or something coming from within? I find that atleast with me it is harder to thow away my own beliefs than somebody elses. And a point that has been over looked, If the only thing that is restraining you is the law, then if its not against the law, then that means that is absolutely right to do(even if its reprehensible). Whereas if you come to the conclusion that certain behaviours are wrong you wouldn't do them even if according to the law you could.

 

[wolram]

If i do not have enough money to support myself in my later years i will rob a bank, i will either get away with it or get caught, if i get caught at least i will be well fed and looked after.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If i do not have enough money to support myself in my later years i will rob a bank, i will either get away with it or get caught, if i get caught at least i will be well fed and looked after.

Or you'll be shot during the robbery.

If there was no law against robbing a bank, you would still do it, so there's no difference that I can tell, other than that you may wait a while longer to be in more desperate straits under the current system

 

[wolram]

Or you'll be shot during the robbery.

If there was no law against robbing a bank, you would still do it, so there's no difference that I can tell, other than that you may wait a while longer to be in more desperate straits under the current system

LOL, the coppers usually arrive 1/2 hour after the robbery, i think i could eat a baccon sarnie and a drink a cup of tea and still have time to get away, the Brit cops don't want to catch people and put them behind the 5 bar hillton.

 

[Phrak]

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

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

My mistake, SA. I didn't delete it fast enough.

 

[ViewsofMars]

There will always be criminals. But there are organizations that alert us of the crime.
Please take the time to look at the missing children on the following link. If you happen to see the child please call the number on the website. I really support this website from National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Thank you.
http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/BannerServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US

 

[Moonbear]

Laws really aren't in place to deter crime. Neither are the punishments defined in those laws...at least not the first time someone commits the crime. At least in the US legal system, theoretically, the laws and "punishments" are meant to catch people who behave outside the accepted societal norms, and rehabilitate them so they don't do it again.

So, I guess for the 33% of criminals who don't commit a crime a second time, it may have worked.

 

[ViewsofMars]

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

Evo, I did find this information from the National Crime Prevention Council.

Teaching Children
It is necessary to reach children with messages about crime, violence, and drug prevention. We may like to think . . .

It is necessary to reach children with messages about crime, violence, and drug prevention. We may like to think that children don’t yet need to know about these topics, but many kids are exposed to crime, violence, and drugs at home, in their neighborhoods, and in the news media.

Law enforcement officers, teachers, and other adults can play an important role in protecting children and helping them to gain the skills they need to make positive decisions for the rest of their lives.

Many law enforcement officers and other adults work with children to teach them how to protect themselves and keep themselves safe. Often, they will visit schools, scout meetings, and community events to talk with children about these topics. McGruff can help you reach children with fun and educational messages – he’s a proven communicator to children of all ages.

Below you will find several resources that can help you teach children about crime prevention, including activity ideas and educational worksheets and coloring pages. For more safety messages for children, visit McGruff.org.
http://www.ncpc.org/topics/by-audience/law-enforcement/teaching-children

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

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).

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.



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.



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.]

What I am getting from these posts primarily is that people will follow be deterred by the law and punishment so long as the fear of the punishment exists and that if for what ever reason the fear of punishment is gone or lessened they may well break the law. I believe I already stated this, that the law is not particularly effective at deterring crime because it deters by fear and if that fear is lessened or disregarded the deterrence disappears. The threat of punishment does not exist uniformly in all places at all times.

I think you're exaggerating. Yes, not everyone follows the traffic laws all the time. But you don't see people driving on the wrong side of the road often, or stopping for green and going for red, etc. I think you'll have to agree that even the total jerks follow the traffic laws most of the time.

It seems to me that neither extreme is correct - is it true that laws (actually, skeptic2 is correct - laws define crimes and punishments deter them) deter all crimes? Obviously not, because we still have crimes. Do they deter no crimes? I don't think that's quite as obviously false, but I still think it's false.

Do people not drive on the wrong side of the road because they fear punishment by the law or because they realize it is dangerous and likely won't get them very far due to the oncoming traffic? Do people not stop at green and go on red because they fear punishment by the law or because they realize that everyone goes on green and everyone stops on red and that they will likely have trouble getting about and possibly place themselves in danger if they do otherwise?

But daily I see people running red lights, tailgating, not using their signals, cutting across multiple lanes of traffic, ect. In fact just the other week on my way to work I saw a guy who cut people off to get on a freeway off-ramp at the last second and went guardrail surfing because of it and then on my way home from work had a woman nearly side swipe me as she tried cutting me off to get on the freeway on-ramp at the last second. Many of these people are not deterred by law, safety, courtesy, or any other thing other than trying to get where they want to be.

Now that I think about it maybe a lot of people do choose not to commit crimes because of the law, since everytime something major happens and the cops can't keep order we see riots and plunder. Maybe it is that belief that we should discuss, what happens when people who are only following the law because of the deterent of punishment, find that that law no longer exsists? Now what would happen when people that believe the action defined in the law is wrong and then that law disappears? If the majority of people are in the former group we have anarchy, if the majority belongs to the latter we still have order even though their is no law. Now let's look at which belief is more easily corruptable. Is it easier to justify away an outside force, or something coming from within? I find that atleast with me it is harder to thow away my own beliefs than somebody elses. And a point that has been over looked, If the only thing that is restraining you is the law, then if its not against the law, then that means that is absolutely right to do(even if its reprehensible). Whereas if you come to the conclusion that certain behaviours are wrong you wouldn't do them even if according to the law you could.

Yes; a total loss of fear of punishment, a complete throwing away of the common social contract, and the mob mentality all at work. Its just another (and particularly extreme) example of the fear of law not being enough to deter crime in and of itself. You don't see riots in places where people are predominantly well educated or have a strong sense of community. You see them in places where the fear of the law is about the only thing keeping anyone from breaking the law, places where crime is high and people often ignore the law to begin with.

 

[Evo]

They are all good arguments, but you can't say that a lot of people aren't taught from a young age to accept and obey laws. They don't question them, they just do not break the law.

You only notice the people breaking the laws, obviously, you don't notice people not breaking laws.

In a lot of traffic incidents, these morons don't even realize that coming to a dead stop in the middle lane of a highway because they realized they have just missed their exit are even breaking the law. Just because there is no law that specifically says that you cannot come to a dead stop in the middle of the highway, doesn't mean that it doesn't fall into other categories of wreckless driving and endangerment. Ignorance is a different topic. Ignorance is rampant, I wish there was a law against it.

SA, you and Jasongreat have some good arguments, but it does go off on a tangent. I don't see why we can't go there. But where did you get your personal feelings of what is right? Laws just represent what we have put into place through the legal system, and is supposedly what the majority of people consider to be "right" as far as their personal beliefs go. Of course the system is flawed, but that's the system that we have.

As for people that don't get what "law" means as far as this thread goes, I wrongly assumed everyone would consider that "Law" meant enforcement, the subsequent consequences of breaking the law, the inconvenience, the cost of lawyers, insurance, loss of personal freedoms, the loss of work, the possibility of losing any present and future employment, and if judged guilty, the punishment. OY. I don't know how I could have put all of that into the thread title or that I even had to explain it, but there you go.

 

[skeptic2]

TheStatutoryApe makes some good points. The threat of punishment for those not confident in their ability to evade the law is probably a good deterrent.

For those who are confident in evading the law, and these people are the real problem, the threat of punishment is probably not much of a deterrent.

 

[WhoWee]

What fun would it be to play a game with no rules?

Laws (and beliefs) are the rule book for life - if you don't like the rules in one country, you can move to another.

If you choose not to follow the rules - you will be an outcast of society. We all have choices.

As Evo said, the more a person has to lose - the less likely they are to break the rules.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They are all good arguments, but you can't say that a lot of people aren't taught from a young age to accept and obey laws. They don't question them, they just do not break the law.

You only notice the people breaking the laws, obviously, you don't notice people not breaking laws.

I am fairly certain that we can assume the majority of people who always follow a particular law are people who agree with or respect that law. I do not think that the majority of people who possesses opportunity and motive to potentially commit crimes, but decide otherwise, are 'deterred' by the thought of punishment. Rather I think that they make an ethical or reasoned choice to do otherwise.

As we have already seen by people's responses in this thread people who do not break the law for fear of punishment still break the law when they feel reasonably certain that they will not suffer any punishment.

But where did you get your personal feelings of what is right?

I am pretty sure that for the most part I found my ethical beliefs through experience. I used to be a little bastard. I would lie and steal and sneak out in the middle of the night. I was also a bit of a fire bug like many young boys. Punishment, or the fear of it, never stopped me. I would just look for ways of trying to make sure not to get caught.

Eventually I began to realize the effect that my actions had on other people and how people thought of me because of the things I did. Getting grounded, losing allowance, or doing community service were all just the cost of doing business. It was when I saw how hurt people were by what I did, that they would no longer trust me, and that I would be blamed for things I didn't even do that it started to sink in. Now I am very nearly the picture of an upstanding citizen, though like most people I occasionally break minor laws that I do not really agree with.

 

[Jasongreat]

What fun would it be to play a game with no rules?

Laws (and beliefs) are the rule book for life - if you don't like the rules in one country, you can move to another.

If you choose not to follow the rules - you will be an outcast of society. We all have choices.

As Evo said, the more a person has to lose - the less likely they are to break the rules.

The government seems to enjoy playing the game with no rules. The constitution is their rule book, and when was the last time that stopped them?

We used to be able to just move to a different state, but now since everything is under the national(we were originally a federal) governments umbrella that is no longer a possibility. I enjoy(probably the wrong word to use) watching Cspan every once in while to see what they are up to, but it seems every time I tune in they are voting to "suspend the rules" , so they can be more expediant at getting a vote to happen. They can't even live by the rules imposed by themselves, but we are supposed to blindly follow the laws they come up with? They are also bound by a social contract, just as the populace is, why are they the exception to all the rules? It doesn't seem to me that the laws deter the lawmakers either.

 

[Kenneth Mann]

A few innocent observations:

Bratticus
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.

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

I agree that it is predominantly the “honest” whom are deterred, however, that they would necessarily be without the laws? It is much more complex than that.

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.

True, if you meant by that, ‘giving it a lot of thought’, they didn’t have to. They would simply do so when the expediency was conceived. We have many examples of this in history, some relatively recent (Rwanda, for example).

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.

Laws codify what constitutes a crime. Without laws, there are technically no crimes - - and this makes vigilante action the only safe alternative in most people’s eyes.

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

They will if they are allowed. It’s human nature to grab for an advantage. Thus, those with either political status, or wealth, or family connection, etc will always try to get some sort of advantage.

The StatutoryApe
There is a near 100% recidivism rate among drunk drivers though many people may not actually be caught more than once.

This suggests a judgment problem among those persons - - - probably related to their drinking proclivities.

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.

What about the frequent victims of these drivers? Example, my brother and his son were badly injured by one who was driving drunk (very). Should we not try to protect the health of these victims? If you can think of an alternative which would work, that would be appreciated by all of us.

Pengwuino
That is, if rape became legal, only sociopaths would do it when normally they wouldn't.

I think sociopaths would do it whether or not it was legal. Laws stop the rest of us.

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...

Most would break many potential rules if they weren’t defined and if those violations weren’t made illegal..

Bratticus
Imho capitalpunishment is government sanctioned murder.

What is defined as murder depends upon the viewpoints of the definers. Is self defense? Is fighting in war? Would hunting down enemies like Bin Laden be if it ended in a fatal shootout? Your answer will depend upon your world view.

In America, capital punishment isn’t defined as murder, even though it is in much of the industrialized world.

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.

Whether something is defined as a crime or simply a violation, that definition’s intended deterrent effect is the same.

Laws are guidelines. Punishment without education creates hostility.

Hostility will result whenever the one punished feels that the punishment is unjust, and those not (convincingly) educated generally will. It stems from our instinctively self-centered nature.

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.

We need to define processes that will educate those being constrained, but we also need to protect the public. We haven’t done very well at either. We can’t allow willful transgressors to run free (we know what they’ll do) but we still need to redefine how we treat these persons. It is not, however, equivalent to what they did. And, those at our mercy won't commit crimes upon us while they are so confined.

If you leave a child without education, growing up in a disrespectful environment, you are laying the foundation for future transgressions.

This is often the case, but not always.

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.

True - - - now what can be done about it to instill that proper 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.

Who defines what that education should be? How do we insure that it will be properly administered? When does it cross the line into indoctrination?

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.

As someone once said "the devil is in the details." Education - - - it is easier said than done! More-so for eliminating poverty.

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

How do you ascertain this?

Pengwuino
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.

We have many examples of what people will do if a transgression is made “not a crime”:
1) For many years, gambling on someone else’s investments in the marketplace (mortgages etc.) were illegal in virtually every state, because in the early 20th century such behavior collapsed the economy. Then, in the early 21st century, the banks got Congress to void all these state laws, in the name of streamlining the economic environment. (Both parties went along almost unanimously.) So then, what happened? People totally uninvested in these markets bet wildly on oil prices and mortage system stability, and in so doing hastened what ensued. A world-wide melt-down. Those people were allowed to do the wrong thing - - - and in the name of unbridled greed - - - they did.
2) In Rwanda, all laws vanished and we see the result.
3) Kings were traditionally exempt from the laws imposed on others, and they traditionally (until the last century or so) behaved badly. Dictators still do.

Yes, people who are ‘respectable’ would transgress (for many reasons), but “crime” would not increase, for a simple reason - - - it has been defined away. We solve the crime problem by making the transgressions not crimes. Example, many more may be killed but no murders will have been committed. This has long been advanced as a solution for drug problems, but then why not solve all crime problems this way?


'Enough for now!'

KM

 

[Jasongreat]

What about the frequent victims of these drivers? Example, my brother and his son were badly injured by one who was driving drunk (very). Should we not try to protect the health of these victims? If you can think of an alternative which would work, that would be appreciated by all of us.
KM

I don't think it is as frequent as it is made out to be. The same day your brother and his son were injured, there were thousands maybe even a million drunk drivers who made it home without hurting anyone. Even if it was only 100 people drinking and driving that day, you want to punish the 100 to stop 1(even though punishing the 100 isn't at all guaranteed to stop the 1), that doesn't seem very efficient to me. No, we shouldn't try to protect the health of these victims because we can't succeed, accidents happen. I think we should punish those that hurt others (the 1) and leave the other 99 alone. Thanks for admiting that the present way doesn't work, but should we continue down a path that's not working, just for the sake of traveling down a path? I realize that path makes some feel warm and fuzzy, but is it logical? Why is it assumed that every problem has a solution? Why does society try so hard to prove a solution is a valid solution when the empirical evidence shows the opposite?

 

[Bratticus]

KM good points. I still believe that education is the better deterrent. Even statistics support that. The number of well educated people commiting crimes is far lower than the number among the uneducated. I realize that the line between education and indoctrination can become blurred. I guess I am idealistic enough and still have faith in the basic decency of my fellow man. Acceptable social conduct is fairly well defined.

Perhaps the old wiccan rede defines it best "and harm ye none, do as ye will"

How to go about it... well, if I had all those answers, I would be a highly paid consultant.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Jason, your own argument defeats itself. When something can be committed often without punishment, people will commit it often, expecting not to get punished. See drug use, speeding, etc. At times huge consequences that the people committing acts know they can get hit by, and definitely they want to avoid it, but they commit the act anyway because they probably won't get nailed. If you only punished the drunk drivers who injured people, there would be zero reason for people to not drive drunk.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/jsic.htm

The results weren't perfect, but the only case where increasing risk of punishment of severity of punishment was actually effective was increasing the risk of punishment in England, NOT the severity of the punishment.

And then note at the end

#
# Changes in the risk of punishment are widely thought to have a greater impact on crime rates than changes in punishment severity. If so, that may explain why punishment risk trends and crime trends were more consistently associated with one another than were punishment severity trends and crime trends.

The empirical evidence suggests a high rate of punishment is what leads to prevention, NOT a low rate of punishment coupled with a high severity for the punishment

 

[rootX]

KM good points. I still believe that education is the better deterrent. Even statistics support that. The number of well educated people commiting crimes is far lower than the number among the uneducated. I realize that the line between education and indoctrination can become blurred. I guess I am idealistic enough and still have faith in the basic decency of my fellow man. Acceptable social conduct is fairly well defined.

Perhaps the old wiccan rede defines it best "and harm ye none, do as ye will"

How to go about it... well, if I had all those answers, I would be a highly paid consultant.

Education is the best solution to solve any problem but not everyone able to get good education - children with poor/uneducated parents who unable to raise their children in good environment. If a child doesn't get good environment, you can't do much so education wouldn't work in that case.

 

[Bratticus]

Education is the best solution to solve any problem but not everyone able to get good education - children with poor/uneducated parents who unable to raise their children in good environment. If a child doesn't get good environment, you can't do much so education wouldn't work in that case.

I beg to differ, poor children are as capable of learning as rich children. Using ones background as an excuse goes out with adulthood. As an adult you should be able to think for yourself and not use your background as an excuse for your own failures. We have too much of that already.

The standards of education should be the same for the poor as for the rich. And if help is needed, a mentoring program appears to work very well, so why not establish more of them.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I beg to differ, poor children are as capable of learning as rich children

Yes, but poor children are less likely to have access to the proper tools to learn as rich children are. Not to mention more likely growing up in a culture where education is undervalued or even looked down on

 

[Integral]

Perhaps one of the best way to encourage respect for laws is to minimize the number of laws. A bare minimum of essential laws would by definition reduce the crime rate. For example; attempts to legislate morality results in mountains of laws which encourage disrespect for not only those laws but laws in general.

Now just what a necessary minimum number of laws is, I have no idea. That is a matter for discussion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This suggests a judgment problem among those persons - - - probably related to their drinking proclivities.

Generally speaking, people who commit crimes have judgment problems for one reason or another.

What about the frequent victims of these drivers? Example, my brother and his son were badly injured by one who was driving drunk (very). Should we not try to protect the health of these victims? If you can think of an alternative which would work, that would be appreciated by all of us.

The best way to protect people from a crime is to prevent it from happening. That is my whole point. In many cases, including drunk driving, the law and punishment in and of themselves seem to be fairly ineffective at accomplishing this. Education has most likely been the best preventative. It seems that there is still a problem with this though since the number of DUIs among females seems to be increasing (up approximately 30% in the last decade). Considering that the severity of punishment has only increased in the same time frame it has obviously not had the intended effect.

Continually increasing the severity of punishment for a crime to the point where it could completely ruin a persons life is not a very effective means of dealing with the offenders. Felons are more likely to be drinkers, do drugs, commit further crimes, ect. When you catch a person who is driving after a couple of beers and it results in loss of license, loss of vehicle, loss of job (and possibly career), jail time, strict and numerous parole/probation guidelines, and a few thousand dollars in fines fees ect; just what do you think is going to be going through the mind of the offender? Gee I really oughtn't drink and drive. or Holy *&%$!@##+%$ what are you people doing to me?!

Apparently increased severity of punishment does not seem to be working. Wouldn't you think we ought to do something more effective? Or do you subscribe to the vengeance school of crime and punishment?

Education is the best solution to solve any problem but not everyone able to get good education - children with poor/uneducated parents who unable to raise their children in good environment. If a child doesn't get good environment, you can't do much so education wouldn't work in that case.

General crime prevention strategies tend to focus on two things. Education is one of them and a sense of community is the other. People who care about their neighbourhood and the people who live there are more likely to consider the possible effects of their actions on others. The average person living in an urban area hardly knows any of their neighbours. They see hundreds or thousands of faceless individuals roaming the streets daily. Consider that a neighbourhood watch not only creates an organized effort to report crime it also creates a relationship between the neighbours who participate and gives them the sense that their neighbourhood and the people in it are worth caring about.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it is as frequent as it is made out to be. The same day your brother and his son were injured, there were thousands maybe even a million drunk drivers who made it home without hurting anyone. Even if it was only 100 people drinking and driving that day, you want to punish the 100 to stop 1(even though punishing the 100 isn't at all guaranteed to stop the 1), that doesn't seem very efficient to me. No, we shouldn't try to protect the health of these victims because we can't succeed, accidents happen. I think we should punish those that hurt others (the 1) and leave the other 99 alone.

This made me curious, so I looked up some stats:


-In 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving related crashes (about 30% of all fatalities)...
-Over 1.46 million drivers were arrested in 2006 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
-Fifty to 75 percent of drunk drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive.
http://www.madd.org/about-us/about-us/statistics.aspx

These stats tell me a few things:
-Traffic accidents are a somewhat significant problem (not huge, though, given the amount of driving people do).
-Drunk driving causes a significant fraction of traffic fatalities, so it should get a significant fraction of the attention.
-1.46 million arrests is a HUGE number and an awful lot of arrests in proportion to the number of fatalitles. How many fatalities does that prevent? I'm not sure if it is worth all that effort or not though. It might just be one of those things that has to be done even if the cost/benefit ratio isn't really there.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Given the potential for fines for those arrests, what IS the net cost? A first time offense is usually a minimum of a couple hundred dollars, so there's close to a half billion dollars of income at least (probably more)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Given the potential for fines for those arrests, what IS the net cost? A first time offense is usually a minimum of a couple hundred dollars, so there's close to a half billion dollars of income at least (probably more)

I think he means "cost vs benefit" in the sense of the cost being people who are not necessarily a threat being arrested and the benefit being the number of people who are a real threat being arrested. Note the post by Jason that he is responding to.


As far as fines and such here in CA the fine just for the ticket, after all the fees and such, is about $1500 or more. I know that they increased the penalties just within the last year so it may be more now. They have also been increasing attached fees for tickets in general. I'm not sure from your post if you are referring to the cost to the individual or not. I'll assume that you are and give you some more costs. An offenders car is impounded and the offender may not be allowed to get the vehicle out of impound for up to 30 days during which time the fees for getting the vehicle out of impound are accruing daily. I believe that the initial cost is about $160 or so and the daily increase is about $60. After you are found guilty you will be required to attend a DUI program. The total cost for the program on a first offense so long as you were not well over the limit is about $500. And if you want your license back you will have to pay the DMV about $500 but that is only after you report your DUI to your insurance, which will likely result in a higher rate, and get an SR22 which is pretty much a separate state mandated increase in your insurance rate that you will have to pay for a minimum of three years. Mine only cost about $8 a month. My insurance rate is already particularly low and I am not sure if the cost of the SR22 varies from company to company and person to person.

 

[Bratticus]

Considering the number of arrests for drunk driving, just how does the drunk driving law prevent the crime?

People who do not drive while intoxicated do so, imho, because they themselves consider it wrong to do so, not because of fear of a ticket.

Does anyone know how many states still have a law on the books that makes adultary a crime? And does that deter anyone from cheating on their spouse? Doubt it.

No matter what I read, education is the answer... tougher laws, stiffer fines... harsher sentences... does not appear any of those work, otherwise we would not have an increase in crime.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Considering the number of arrests for drunk driving, just how does the drunk driving law prevent the crime?

People who do not drive while intoxicated do so, imho, because they themselves consider it wrong to do so, not because of fear of a ticket.

Does anyone know how many states still have a law on the books that makes adultary a crime? And does that deter anyone from cheating on their spouse? Doubt it.

No matter what I read, education is the answer... tougher laws, stiffer fines... harsher sentences... does not appear any of those work, otherwise we would not have an increase in crime.

To be fair part of the relatively consistent or increasing rate of DUI arrests is due to decreases in the legal limit and the police striving to make as many arrests as possible because it makes money both in fines and fees as well as state and federal money that goes towards DUI enforcement.

 

[BigFairy]

fining people for everything seems to be the norm these days :(


the latest here is: No riding of scooters or skates/skateboards on roads after dark.

im not kidding either.