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
