Here are some hard statistics on the increases in homicides (and other crimes) in cities where the prosecutors have decided to selectively enforce and not to prosecute certain crimes.
The death penalty does not seem to deter criminals. The possibility of it may make them more reckless in not getting caught. About the only thing it does is take them out of the human race, after about a decade of court appeals.This might bring support for bringing back the death penalty. About the only good thing that could come of this mess.
They also found that 90 percent of serious crimes are committed by 10 percent of the population. Once they're in jail, the crime rates fall dramatically.in the book Freakonomics, the authors found the two most important events that reduced crime in the 90's. one was putting more cops on the streets. but the largest was the certainty of jail time for committing crimes. the tougher the penalty, and the more time served for the crime, the lower the crime rate. but the pendulum has swung; we tend to oscillate between tough-on-crime approaches and more lenient ones. sooner or later the people will get fed up with the increased crime rates, the politicians will get a clue, and we'll go back to the harsher, more effective, methods
The death penalty does stop recidivism.The death penalty does not seem to deter criminals. The possibility of it may make them more reckless in not getting caught. About the only thing it does is take them out of the human race, after about a decade of court appeals.
Agreed, it isn't a deterrent. I was speaking of a permanent solution to the most problematic and destructive criminal elements. Simply get rid of them.The death penalty does not seem to deter criminals. The possibility of it may make them more reckless in not getting caught. About the only thing it does is take them out of the human race, after about a decade of court appeals.
You are absolutely right, good point. Another factor that enhances the deterrent effect I have read about is the speed at which the "being caught and receiving even a comparatively modest consequence" happens. If it takes a long time to catch them and a long time to convict them, it creates the illusion that the certainty is not there. And as we know of course, the colder a case gets, the less likely a successful case can be brought.It is not the severity of possible punishment that causes would be criminals to obey the law, it is the certainty of being caught and receiving even a comparatively modest consequence.
Indianapolis is less than 40 miles from my home. Fewer than 50 percent of murders in the past two record setting years resulted in the arrest of a suspect. Less than 30% of the murder investigations resulted in a plea deal or guilty verdict. Lesser crimes like carjacking, assaults, property theft, robbery and arson have far lower conviction rates than murder. The odds of being held accountable are so low that in the eyes of a dedicated criminal, crime does pay.
If most crimes resulted in an arrest and conviction, judges could impose escalating sentences on criminals beginning with as little as six months in jail and tripling the sentence each time the offender appears before the court. Especially heinous crimes could be defined and handled through a major crimes system with severe penalties for first offenders. This only works if most crimes result in an arrest and conviction.
Many, many currently "unsolvable" crimes in Indianapolis could be solved with the introduction of a Wide Area Aerial Surveillance System, integrated use of existing (and some additional) stationary cameras and license plate readers on buses, public works vehicles, and police cars. It is proven technology that provides detectives and prosecutors the data and information needed to obtain results.
I will sit back now and let people debate which is preferable, increased scrutiny of our daily lives or free reign felons preying on the populace.