Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,507 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,408 Posts
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
38,195 Posts
Tough on crime renders fewer but tougher criminals. Soft on crime renders more but softer criminals. The War on Drugs is a perfect example.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,287 Posts
This might bring support for bringing back the death penalty. About the only good thing that could come of this mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G26Raven

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,338 Posts
Here's a radical idea: Clean out the books and reduce the amount of frivolous laws that define certain actions as crimes and leave only a few actions that can easily be understood to be crimes. Then completely do away with the prison system in favor of a two tiered punishment. Those punishments being either death for the most severe crimes such as rape or murder or kidnapping. Exile with pain of death upon return for the less severe crimes such as robbery or fraud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,507 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
  • Like
Reactions: OD*

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,649 Posts
This might bring support for bringing back the death penalty. About the only good thing that could come of this mess.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,421 Posts
The pendulum swings eventually - if we can outlast the current no-punishment phase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,891 Posts
Load them all on the back of a C5 Galaxy, do a sudden and steep climb as you let down the cargo ramp…..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,685 Posts
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
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G26Raven

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,462 Posts
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.
The death penalty does stop recidivism.
But you got to be extra sure you are not killing an innocent man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,891 Posts
I honestly believe that our rule of law is the problem because it offers more protection for the criminal than for the victim.

Jeff Cooper had it absolutely correct when he said that the criminal must be taught to fear the citizens. The laws need to be changed so that the criminal will gladly turn himself over to the authorities rather than face the retribution of the masses.

Bring back public hangings and picnics on the ground so the children can see what happens to those who choose that life.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,287 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
We have had the "3 strike rule" in many states for a long time. The weak link has been the prosecutor's lack of motivation in applying them and sticking to the guidelines. The populace wants to spout their liberal "rehabilitation" agendas and blame the Police for not doing their job's, when they continue to "tie their hands" at every turn.

Attorney's and judges keep getting convictions overturned on technicalities so their "repeat offender's" can continue to provide their "cash cow's". People don't want to pay the extra taxes to provide more prisons with longer sentences , all of which enables criminals to continue and escalate their behavior. It's similar in nature to when the Fed's closed the mental asylum's in the 60's, no one wants to pay the bill.

Some people simply do not belong out with the general populace, but that attitude will have to evolve once "the people" are fed up with these criminal behaviors. I believe the "death penalty" is a deterrent , but it has to be real.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,649 Posts
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.
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.

When it comes to gun crimes, the certainty factor is really low for actual criminals. I heard a retired prosecutor say in a presentation that gun crimes are almost always plea bargained away for guilty pleas to more serious crimes and this is true across the country. So the only people who get punished for gun crimes are otherwise law abiding citizens with no other charges.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top