Justice- Too severe or too lax?

ChocolateSauce

I got this idea while reading the "depressing injustice thread"...

Given the yes or no choice between a justice system that was too severe on criminals or too lenient (take this as subjectively as you wish), which would you choose? A good or so-so system is not on offer!

I'd go for one that was too lenient for two main reasons. One, I think it is worse to unfairly punish a person than it is to let someone off too lightly, and two, I think it would force a shift on the emphasis from punishment to prevention and rehabilitation. Conversely, being too hard on people can be counter-productive, like sending a pot smoker to jail only to become a junkie inside.

Think I'm wrong? I'm open to convincing on this one...

irish_bob

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I got this idea while reading the "depressing injustice thread"...

Given the yes or no choice between a justice system that was too severe on criminals or too lenient (take this as subjectively as you wish), which would you choose? A good or so-so system is not on offer!

I'd go for one that was too lenient for two main reasons. One, I think it is worse to unfairly punish a person than it is to let someone off too lightly, and two, I think it would force a shift on the emphasis from punishment to prevention and rehabilitation. Conversely, being too hard on people can be counter-productive, like sending a pot smoker to jail only to become a junkie inside.

Think I'm wrong? I'm open to convincing on this one...

you encourage bad behaviour by not punishing it properly , bad people have no respect for softies , its better to have too harsh a system as the perpetrator made a choice to commit crime , the victim had no choice yet will have more consolation knowing that thier perpetrator recieved his or her comeuppance , society needs boundaries , if thier is no consequence or the consequence is too light for serious crimes , society looses respect for both the law and citizens themselves

p.s , i dont agree with sending people to jail for smoking pot

mjg

IMO it's better to err on the severe side, rather than the lenient, to make incarceration a real deterrent. I don't mean just doubling or tripling the current recommended jail terms, I mean a system where the punishment fits the crime.

The effect on the victim/victims family and on peripheral/potential victims would be some of the things to be considered when legislating for crimes against the person. This is, IMO where the justice system fails most, letting victims of crime, and by extension all of us down.

Greyfox

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Given the yes or no choice between a justice system that was too severe on criminals or too lenient (take this as subjectively as you wish), which would you choose? A good or so-so system is not on offer!

I'd go for one that was too lenient for two main reasons. One, I think it is worse to unfairly punish a person than it is to let someone off too lightly, and two, I think it would force a shift on the emphasis from punishment to prevention and rehabilitation. Conversely, being too hard on people can be counter-productive, like sending a pot smoker to jail only to become a junkie inside.

Think I'm wrong? I'm open to convincing on this one...

I can't understand how anybody could prefer a too lenient system, in order to live in harmony and peace their needs to be very strong deterents for committing crime. In any society people will always be tempted to commit crime but a strong fear of been caught would be the best prevention! I believe that when you say "let someone off too lightly" your not really thinking of the impact crime has on the victim/relation of the victim especially more serious crimes like rape and murder. I also think that if someone at say 16 breaks into a house or robs a car you should teach him a stren lesson now so that he won't do it again rather then go easy on him for his first offence and then see him back a couple of years later with a much more serious crime!

Take Dubai as a perfect example...you won't find scumbags or junkies over their, their is zero drugs and almost zero crime...people always feel very safe walking the streets!

stesh

A lenient justice system places more emphasis on a genuine sense of morality being what prevents crimes being committed, rather a fear of being caught and punished.

irish_bob

Greyfox wrote: »

I can't understand how anybody could prefer a too lenient system, in order to live in harmony and peace their needs to be very strong deterents for committing crime. In any society people will always be tempted to commit crime but a strong fear of been caught would be the best prevention! I believe that when you say "let someone off too lightly" your not really thinking of the impact crime has on the victim/relation of the victim especially more serious crimes like rape and murder. I also think that if someone at say 16 breaks into a house or robs a car you should teach him a stren lesson now so that he won't do it again rather then go easy on him for his first offence and then see him back a couple of years later with a much more serious crime!

Take Dubai as a perfect example...you won't find scumbags or junkies over their, their is zero drugs and almost zero crime...people always feel very safe walking the streets!

in fairness , everyone in dubai is a gangster , the place is rotten from top to bottom , im no lefty but the exploitation of foreign labour in that country is disgusting and the disregard for laws which allegededly protect foreign investors isnt worth the papers thier printed on which many an irish investor can testify to

irish_bob

stesh wrote: »

A lenient justice system places more emphasis on a genuine sense of morality being what prevents crimes being committed, rather a fear of being caught and punished.

pie in the sky stuff

Cianos

People don't commit serious crime after estimating the consequences of their action. A rapist is not going to sit at home with a pen and paper and calculate the possibility of him getting caught, factoring in the punishment he'll face and then decide whether to carry out the crime or not. Unfortunately criminals generally don't have very rational minds, which is part of the reason they carry out their heinous acts in the first place. In the heat of the moment, is the murderer really going to think "hold on, I could get 30 years for this instead of 20...maybe I should put the knife down".

If severe punishment was a deterrent for serious crime, then one would expect to see a gradual trend towards lower crime rates wherever there was more severe sentencing and punishment. This is not the case because the problem is not so black and white. States focused on punishment as a solution to crime often end up ignoring the opportunities that could prevent crime in the first place. Punishment can only ever happen after the crime, whereas there is so much more that can be done before the crime happens. Unfortunately it's easier for politicians to gain votes by supporting more severe sentencing because it's easier to fit on a campaign poster, than proposing preventative programmes working with disadvantaged youth etc etc.

lizzyvera

Countries that have severe justice systems almost always have systemic injustices or laws that limit personal freedom.
They also have problems with jury nullification. It doesn't work.

Anyway, prison is hardly a punishment. It's useful to keep dangerous criminals away from society and each other, but it does nothing to prevent petty offenders offending again, especially when they can only be given short sentences. So it costs a lot of money and achieves nothing in most cases.

Even rehab is a waste of money in most cases. (I hate pop psychology, but) you can't change someone who doesn't give a flying f.

I think we need a fresh perspective.

Greyfox

irish_bob wrote: »

in fairness , everyone in dubai is a gangster , the place is rotten from top to bottom , im no lefty but the exploitation of foreign labour in that country is disgusting and the disregard for laws which allegededly protect foreign investors isnt worth the papers thier printed on which many an irish investor can testify to

Hello??? Would you care to supply some facts befor you make such a stupid statement, I spent 10 days over their recently and found the place very friendly and safe. Lost my wallet in a nightclub and it was HANDED BACK TO ME by one of the staff..no begging, no scumbags, no drugs...wonderful place!

Anyway I'm all for investing more money in preventing crime, I just think it's far more important for people to feel safe in their homes and on the streets at night then it is to worry about people who decide to cross the line into commiting a crime!

lizzyvera

In ten days you might not have noticed a lot. Look up human rights in UAE. Amnesty.org have a LOT on them. Particularly pay attention to torture and lgbt.

Then come back and tell us who the "scumbags" are.

I would much rather live somewhere like here with lots of petty crime but no massive human rights violations. I don't know how anyone would think that Dubai is a perfect example of a society.

Joycey

stesh wrote:

A lenient justice system places more emphasis on a genuine sense of morality being what prevents crimes being committed, rather a fear of being caught and punished.

irish_bob wrote: »

pie in the sky stuff

So the reason you dont go raping your neighbours children is because your afraid of getting caught? Good to know...

Edit: Cianos got there before me

In ten days you might not have noticed a lot. Look up human rights in UAE. Amnesty.org have a LOT on them. Particularly pay attention to torture and lgbt.

Then come back and tell us who the "scumbags" are.

I would much rather live somewhere like here with lots of petty crime but no massive human rights violations. I don't know how anyone would think that Dubai is a perfect example of a society.

A buddy of mine is kuwaiti and they have the same **** there. Kuwaitis are only lawyers, doctors, engineers etc, they have pakistanis and indians to do everything else for them, the people who build stuff, clean, serve food, work in shops, everything except professional jobs are foreigners, they have virtually no rights, are open to being abused by the people who they work for, if they are not abused its because of the discretion of their employers as opposed to any institutional provision being made for them.

stesh

irish_bob wrote: »

pie in the sky stuff

So what is your philosophy behind the architecture of a justice system?

Greyfox

lizzyvera wrote: »

In ten days you might not have noticed a lot. Look up human rights in UAE. Amnesty.org have a LOT on them. Particularly pay attention to torture and lgbt.

Then come back and tell us who the "scumbags" are.

I would much rather live somewhere like here with lots of petty crime but no massive human rights violations. I don't know how anyone would think that Dubai is a perfect example of a society.

And where did I say Dubai was a perfect example of a society? I just think they must be doing something right if everyone feels a lot safer walking the streets over their and the fact that theirs virtually no petty crime!

The scumbags are over here because in Irish law for example if it's your first offence the courts will go easy on you and your guarenteed to get off for good behaviour!

Stesh, I think talking about a "genuine sense of morality" is very naive and silly, do you really think wheter or not something is morally right matters to a person who would rape, murder or rob an old lady?

Having a lenient justice sytem is just letting all the rapists, murderers and scumbags know that their rights are far more important then the victims of such crime.

Dades

Punishment needs to be severe, before it acts as a deterrent. This, and there needs to be a reasonable chance of getting caught. Of course for certain crime (possibly rape) nothing will deter an perpetrator.

My wife has thoughts on what to do with, say, that rapist who twice attacked women within hours after serving lengthy sentences, or those thieves that recently murdered an elderly man in his home.

Take them out and shoot them. They will only ever be a detriment to and a drain on society.

Sometimes I find it difficult to disagree. :pac:

metrovelvet

Too severe or too lax? Impossible to say. But it would help if there were some perspective in the scale.

For example, a country which imprisons people who do not have a television licence but lets out pedophiles in a year is down right incompetent.

Given that the current system is too lenient, I'd like to try out the too severe one

metrovelvet

bluewolf wrote: »

Given that the current system is too lenient, I'd like to try out the too severe one

In some instances it already is too severe, as in tv and dog licenses and unpaid maintenance.

irish_bob

Greyfox wrote: »

Hello??? Would you care to supply some facts befor you make such a stupid statement, I spent 10 days over their recently and found the place very friendly and safe. Lost my wallet in a nightclub and it was HANDED BACK TO ME by one of the staff..no begging, no scumbags, no drugs...wonderful place!

Anyway I'm all for investing more money in preventing crime, I just think it's far more important for people to feel safe in their homes and on the streets at night then it is to worry about people who decide to cross the line into commiting a crime!

google , irish investors in dubai and you wont be long seeing what the place is like as regards what legal contracts are worth , dubai is saudi arabia with a good pr department

Greyfox

metrovelvet wrote: »

In some instances it already is too severe, as in tv and dog licenses and unpaid maintenance.

This is completely untrue, we have a very lenient system over here.

Ah sure whatever you get convicted for over here your guarenteed to get out early anyway for good behaviour! We live in a country were sex ofenders re-offend most of the time after release and only a very small percentage of reported rapes end in a conviction, and sure you can be known to the gardai and have 56 previous convictions and still be considered a good citizen!