DanP said:
Sure, I agree with you. Please provide proof of causality between a lenient criminal system and a safe society. One which is conclusive, and excludes (or at least undoubtedly marks a lenient criminal system as the major contributor) all other factors, such as homogeneity of society, the educational and social programs.
This is what I mean about looking at an issue too simply: I don't think you can look at one factor at work and say, "aha, this is the cause of crime, or the cause of crime's cessation!". A prison system which puts a premium on rehabilitation rather than indefinite incarceration, which is ALSO based in a society with a high standard of living, eduction, and more all goes to the same end.
I imagine that your retort is that the USA isn't like Finland, nor ever likely to be, but does that mean we shouldn't take some cues from them? Russia has a notorious prison system, and a ridiculously high crime rate; far higher than ours, so do they just need to get tougher (not sure how they could)? Do they need to take a tip from Finland and try to reform their system... I don't think so. The problem in Russia is desperation, endemic corruption, and more, and none of that is changed by how you deal with people after they commit crimes.
To a greater or lesser extent, the same is true in the USA, but we DON'T have a rising crime rate, so maybe now that we have a handle on it, it's time to explore options that are open to a more successful society. Treating drug addiction and mental illness as health problems, with consummate reform of our mental health infrastructure would be quite useful. I don't think prisons filled with addicts who create an in-prison economy for drugs helps the cause of prisons, OR addicts. True, once someone commits a crime such as armed robbery or murder to feed their habit, they no longer would qualify, but could that person have been caught earlier in their rap sheet?... yeah, I think so.
This is so much like the "spanking/no-spanking" debate, when the issue is really how you deal with a kid so that they don't ****-up and require punishment in the first place. A "time out" is a way to stop behavior before it gets to the point where you need to punish, but somehow it's become a substitute for punishment, and now people are baffled when their kids aren't deterred by it. Well, if you use a hammer as a screwdriver, you're not going to have much luck, so go figure. In the same way, if you slap around a kid at the smallest thing, you're not teaching them anything, except that you're violent, and that violence is an effective means of control in the short term. Neither of the above are what parents are trying to teach their kids, but setting limits and enforcing them, and more complex punishments takes a lot of effort for the parent, and frankly, a lot crap out. When that happens, you're telling the kid "you're tougher than me", so matters escalate.
In much the same way, talking about the death penalty is like talking about beating (not spanking, actual beating) the hell out of a kid... by the time we've reached that point we've already lost the fight. Singapore, like Japan, has virtually no tolerance for what it deems to be a crime or immoral behavior, although what each country chooses to define as immoral and criminal differs in areas. The laws in Singapore reflect the cultural norms of the people, even the ones that visitors find draconian or strange (Singapore and "Night Life" are oxymoronic). This is possible because the people SUPPORT and generated these customs and laws, it wasn't just magically imposed one day.
Japan has a different way of dealing with things, but it is similar. If Singapore is an honest nun, then Japan is her naughty sister. In Japan, you have incredibly high levels of public order, and low violent crime, but whereas in Singapore the sex trade is DEEPLY underground and frankly, not that prevalent, in Japan you have the "Mizu shōbai" (Water Trade) which covers pretty much everything from a regular strip club to outright prostitution and some unique variants such as hostess bars and image clubs. Most of these, if not all, are affiliated with organized crime, but in Japan it's really REALLY organized! The Yakuza run that industry through bribes to the police and patronage of politicians (and blackmail and other means), but you won't see them as crimes on the books. It's an accepted cultural practice, and the means by which its run is as well... if someone in crime steps out of that line, the penalties socially and legally are VERY harsh, but it's rarely a problem.
In the USA, we have no single history or culture that allows for, or disallows the Singapore or Japanese model. Aside from the fact that pretty much any American you ask is going to think the Mizu shōbai is some weird stuff, good luck getting consensus on anything else. Prostitution is legal in some states, illegal in others, and "streetwalking" prostitutes are illegal everywhere. AND YET... we have tons of them, mostly addicted to drugs, but either way it's a crime. I'm not suggesting we have our own "water trade"... that's definitely another debate, but I am saying that our social norms and what we call a crime and how we deal with them as they happen, IS a big issue. MOST people don't pick up a gun, walk into a convenience store and demand cash as their first crime, but all too often that gun is used in panic or anger, and now you have a 2nd degree murder. If not, you still have an armed robber and that's around 7-10 years in most states.
Now, there are definitely people out there, such as rapists (serial especially) and sociopaths who commit crimes both petty and major who aren't going to respond to deterrents, social norms, or anything else. Those same people can't be treated with modern psychology or medicine either, so really we should be putting them away for a damned long time, or in your view, executing them. They are a TINY minority however, yet our prison system and death penalty isn't really geared to them; it's more of a shotgun approach at hunting pigeons. The result is messy, although you can always claim you hit your mark, the cost is high (no meal, no more pigeon) and the result is not acceptable.
Most people who live a normal life until they kill a spouse or child or friend out of jealousy or rage or who-knows-what... people unlikely to kill, and unlikely to kill again, also need to be put in jail, but there I think the "Finland" model is more successful. We're not dealing with deranged child-rapists, or serial criminals, but people who reached a breaking point and need to be rehabilitated. More importantly, evidence suggests that they CAN be rehabilitated (although not in our system). In the same way that you use a .22 to the head at point blank range for a mafia kill, a .308 winchester for a buck, and 12-10 gauge shotgun for anything you want shredded like Enron's records, so we should have some discretion in how we deal with various criminals.
First line of defense: Deal with drugs in a way that doesn't make the problem worse.
Second line of defense: Deal with the mentally ill as if their mentally ill and not evil, and stop shoving them into jails and prisons or the streets because we have no other options with our current devastated mental health system.
Third line of defense: This is tricky, but trying to raise the standard of living, not to universal wealth and joy, but past miserable poverty for some is very effective. Education and more go into this, including educating parents and keeping kids from having kids... teenagers generally have a hard time raising kids.
Fourth line of defense: When someone starts to commit petty crimes, and every damned cop and DoC officer knows they'll be back, not because they're bad, but because of their situation, education, etc... intervene. Don't throw them in jail to be trained by other criminals, divided into race-gangs and more.
Fifth: See #4, but change it so this person is committing crimes and is a sociopath. At THAT point, they need to be separated from your average prisoner, because just like they leave a wake of destruction in the free world, they do the same in prison. The earlier his nibs is caught skinning cats, or serial offenders are marked as such, the better. It would be nice to rehab them, but we can't right now, so get them the hell off the street.
Sixth: When someone blows their top and commits a terrible crime, follow the Finland rule, and try to rehab them. If they're not insane, and not sociopaths, there's no reason that with proper rehabilitation in prison, while paying their debt to society, that they can't be productive members again. I'm not saying they should spend 5 years for killing their wife or husband, but a life sentence is equally absurd.
Seventh: Now, with the rest out of the way, we have a platform to debate the death penalty. Killing is a FINAL OPTION in life, and it should be in law, not just as the ultimate penalty, but also after we've done all we can before-hand to help society. I still think it serves no purpose, because sociopaths don't think about consequences, people who kill in passion aren't planning ahead to consequences, and drug addicts and the mentally ill are desperate and/or deranged. Really, you're left with serial criminals capable of planning ahead, corporate crime which is organized and premeditated, and the rarest kind of murder; assassination for profit or a "reasonable" non-psychotic motive. The assassin might be a sociopath, but the person who hires them may well not be. These people aren't deterred, because they don't believe they'll be caught or punished!
Why should we keep the practice of the death penalty for a vanishingly small number of cases, none of which are going to make the "cut and dried" standard, because of the necessary complexity? Why keep it, when we let free the people who destroy the life's work and savings of hundreds of thousands get off scott-free for with a slap on the wrist, but someone who takes one life is killed? It's an irrational desire for vengeance, and that's not an acceptable motive for murder, and it shouldn't be an acceptable motive for execution. Given how few people really fit the category, current or my "revised edition" for high crimes, saving money is BS... there aren't that many people costing us that much on death-row.
As a society, if we choose to just kill 'em all and let god sort them out, instead of trying to change our society and various systems, we're just killers with a profit and revenge motive. Like any killer, we're making ourselves feel just thinking that "they deserve it", or "why waste time and money on X person".
