Would you like if ireland adapted usa/uk laws

7sr2z3fely84g5

There does be enough giving out and outrage over scandals,corruption,and mere slap on the wrist type sentences.

Sykk

Some.. yes.

For example.. Rape only gets you 7 or so years here.. If the judge is harsh. I think sexual predators should have at least 20 years to think about why they destroyed someones life/personality and confidence. All the while getting done up the arse by "Big ben" with the tattoos every day for the 20 years, just to taste some of what was inflicted.

Gun laws etc, no.

theboss80

2nd ammendment seems cool

u140acro3xs7dm

I would like the 3 strike rule to come in for certain offences like rape or serious assault/GBH type of thing. You hear so many stories of people out on parole or bale and they kill someone even though they have 10 or 20 convictions.

Also for white collar crime, Lock them up until the national debt has been paid off.

neilthefunkeone

Love to be able to turn left on a red light.. Absolute genius!!!!:D

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sykk wrote: »

Some.. yes.

For example.. Rape only gets you 7 or so years here.. If the judge is harsh. I think sexual predators should have at least 20 years to think about why they destroyed someones life/personality and confidence. All the while getting done up the arse by "Big ben" with the tattoos every day for the 20 years, just to taste some of what was inflicted.

Gun laws etc, no.

I actually don't care whether they think about it. They should just be off the streets for public safety.

Particularly repeat offenders - they should never see the light of day again. Is there actually evidence they can be "cured" or is it just this modern obsession that people are inherently good?

Capt'n Midnight

Patriot Act etc.

Right to silence can be held against you.

Parliament can change any law at any time without needing a referendum.



We already have enough laws , we just need these laws to be enforced such that people aren't tempted to break them because they know that in the unlikely event of being prosecuted a good lawyer will get them off.

rossie1977

well the states have about 10 times the prison population per capita we do so i guess we would need to start building alot of new prisons for one

YFlyer

rossie1977 wrote: »

well the states have about 10 times the prison population per capita we do so i guess we would need to start building alot of new prisons for one

We could put them on 'house arrest.' There is plenty lying idle.

yeppydeppy

If we adapted their laws? I'm fine with that but I'm not sure how they would feel. First thing to do would be change their fiscal policy to bail us out.

HappyTuesday

Does any country castrate paedophiles and rapists as punishment?...

Wompa1

PedoPriest wrote: »

Does any country castrate paedophiles and rapists as punishment?...

I think some states in America offer it as a punishment for a reduced sentence

Saila

yeah bring back the death penalty, there is no deterrants!

mgmt

A life-sentence should mean life. Zero tolerance in prisons.

Mint Sauce

Your talking about sentencing OP.

Most of our actual laws (not the sentencing), actully originate from the UK, and precidents set there.

immature ejaculation

not to sure about the right to arm bears!!!

dvpower

Would you like if ireland adapted usa/uk laws

I'd say the USA / UK would be pissed off.

RussellTuring

No I certainly would not. Between America's ridiculous drug laws, death penalty and policies such as three-strikes that just don't work and the UK's libel laws, I think we're doing grand. There are a few I don't like such as explicit permission for religious discrimination but I don't think we should adopt anyone else's. I wouldn't mind if we just started from scratch.

holystungun9

mgmt wrote: »

A life-sentence should mean life. Zero tolerance in prisons.

You mean like when it's your 'turn' to spend the night with Big bubba, and you are not allowed to put it off coz of your 'headache'.

pragmatic1

We already have a common law system like those two countries.

CrazyRabbit

The American 'justice' system is heavily biased against poor people & non-whites. It also rarely considers rehabilitation as an option and instead focuses on extremely long sentences...in many cases well out of proportion to the crime committed. These sentences do not deter crime & cost the tax payers a huge sum of money. Hell, prisons are actually big business in America with the owners encouraging/lobbying for longer sentences & jail time for more minor offences.

It should actually be called the 'American injustice system'.

Their laws also strongly encourage frivolous lawsuits and litigation over the smallest of issues.

So...no thanks.

As for the UK...well they are America's puppet and their laws are slowly changing to be more American.

Irish law is far from perfect, and sentences for some offences/repeat offences do need to be increased. But overall, I'd prefer to see people treated/rehabilitated as you can only keep them locked up for so long, and it costs us a fortune to do so. I'd also like to see more harsh non-prison sentences....like hard labour for example.

dr gonzo

The legal system? Nope, the Irish legal system is flawed for sure but the three strike system among many other issues makes the US system quite unappealing.

However on a similar note i think the bill of rights is something every country should think about adopting in some form or another. Some of it doesnt really apply anymore such as quartering of troops and i certainly dont mean the second amendment but some of the others are exceptionally important to the US and could be adopted here if we dont have them already... we probably do, im clueless about the Irish constitution.

PedoPriest wrote: »

Does any country castrate paedophiles and rapists as punishment?...

Only happened recently in the states. Surgical castration no less.

Capt'n Midnight

Wompa1 wrote: »

I think some states in America offer it as a punishment for a reduced sentence

Chemical Castration , not sure if it's permenant.

Also those sort of crimes are more likely to be about power than sex.

Capt'n Midnight

immature ejaculation wrote: »

not to sure about the right to arm bears!!!

:rolleyes:

It's the right to wear short sleeves. :pac:


Actually only the militia have the right to bear arms, the population at large does NOT. And calling yourself a milita doesn't make you THE militia. Especially if you haven't been enrolled. Basically it's another name for the National Guard.
http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792

Capt'n Midnight

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

The American 'justice' system is heavily biased against poor people & non-whites.

I think OJ would disagree with you.

The US system treats all equally regardless of colour, creed or race. It's the best justice money can buy.

CrazyRabbit

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I think OJ would disagree with you.

The US system treats all equally regardless of colour, creed or race. It's the best justice money can buy.

He was hardly poor.

Capt'n Midnight

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

He was hardly poor.

point is that if you only tick one of the poor / non-white boxes you'll have a much better outcome

for the death penalty being coloured / poor / southern / below average IQ arer risk factors (Can't remember if the victim being white is also a risk factor)

prinz

Longer sentencing, and some sort of 'three strikes' policy. Repeat offending is laughable at this stage. Dublin woman up in court recently for attemtped theft had 100+ previous convictions for the same. I'd argue for the introduction of chain-gangs of prisoners doing public work too.. picking litter, cutting grass, whatever..

orourkeda

Lets not pretend to kid ourselves by pretending that the U.S and U.K legal systems are perfect.

orourkeda

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I think OJ would disagree with you.

The US system treats all equally regardless of colour, creed or race. It's the best justice money can buy.

Nonsense. Like most other things in life money can buy "justice" also.

RussellTuring

prinz wrote: »

Longer sentencing, and some sort of 'three strikes' policy. Repeat offending is laughable at this stage. Dublin woman up in court recently for attemtped theft had 100+ previous convictions for the same. I'd argue for the introduction of chain-gangs of prisoners doing public work too.. picking litter, cutting grass, whatever..

Do you want Three Strikes because you think it will deter crime or because you want to punish criminals with lengthy sentences? If it's the former, you might want to reevaluate your position: three strikes involves people receiving 25 year sentences for shoplifting a few dollars' worth of stuff, having already served the applicable sentences for their previous convictions. When they know that they are going to receive a mandatory life sentence for something like this they are much more likely to resist arrest, making the job more dangerous for police.

It would be cruel enough if it worked but it doesn't even do this. It's had little or no discernible effect on recidivism or overall crime rates. I can only hope that people will some day realise we can't successfully prevent crime by coming up with new ways to punish offenders; we have to tackle whatever causes the criminal behaviour in the first place. Enacting legislation based on sports terminology is not the way to go.

prinz

RussellTuring wrote: »

Do you want Three Strikes because you think it will deter crime or because you want to punish criminals with lengthy sentences?

I would like to see something like everytime you are convicted of an offence, particularly the same offence, the sentence gets doubled, whether it's a monetary fine, or a custodial sentence.

I really have no time for someone racking up 100+ convictions for similar offences and wasting Garda and court time for another slap on the wrist, while the victim could be affected for life. As to the causes of the criminal behaviour in the first place, in a lot of cases there is no real cause other than opportunism, a criminal mindset and plain thuggery. There is no magic wand to change this, the change has to be made by the person in question.

RussellTuring

prinz wrote: »

I would like to see something like everytime you are convicted of an offence, particularly the same offence, the sentence gets doubled, whether it's a monetary fine, or a custodial sentence.

I really have no time for someone racking up 100+ convictions for similar offences and wasting Garda and court time for another slap on the wrist, while the victim could be affected for life. As to the causes of the criminal behaviour in the first place, in a lot of cases there is no real cause other than opportunism, a criminal mindset and plain thuggery. There is no magic wand to change this, the change has to be made by the person in question.

Why did you quote my question and then make no attempt to answer it?

A "criminal mindset and plain thuggery" are characteristics you can apply to people by virtue of their committing crimes, not motivations to do so. And opportunism could apply to everyone. There are reasons for people breaking laws and simply seeing them as innately criminal, distinct from the rest of us, is definitely not the way to prevent crime.

walshb

No expert on the law, but in the U.K I do believe they too hand out some really lenient sentences. Not all the time, but they are far from perfect.

prinz

RussellTuring wrote: »

Why did you quote my question and then make no attempt to answer it?

I answered it very clearly. Longer sentences/harsher punishments for repeat offenders. I am not talking about sentencing someone to life imprisonment for "shoplifting a few dollars worth of stuff" or whatever other heart-wrenching example I am sure you will provide..

RussellTuring wrote: »

A "criminal mindset and plain thuggery" are characteristics you can apply to people by virtue of their committing crimes, not motivations to do so. And opportunism could apply to everyone.

Most "motivations" for crime are easily understandable. Get money, quickly and easily. Very few people are forced into crime. It's up to themselves to stay clear of it. No amount of state support is going to cure the criminal lifestyle of some people.

RussellTuring wrote: »

There are reasons for people breaking laws and simply seeing them as innately criminal, distinct from the rest of us, is definitely not the way to prevent crime.

..there are and I have provided a few that apply to most crimes. Money.. obtaining a sense of power/self-worth, and the concept of 'because I can'. Crime can best be prevented by the people who engage in it.

G_R

I think the "3 Strike Rule" for the likes of shoplifting is ridiculous, but for more serious offences, why not? For example aggravated assault. If someone has done it three times, and been punished for it twice, then personally i think it's a fair enough guess that that person is going to do it again once they get out. I think someone like that should be put in jail for 20/25 years, and by the time they get out they will probably be close to 50 or 60 years of age, and by that time they would have substantially less risk of re-offending.

As for adopting their laws as a whole, god no. America has one of the highest murder rates in the developed word, if not the highest. Not to mention the huge drug problem they have.

And not being allowed drink until your 21 is ludicrous!

RussellTuring

prinz wrote: »

I answered it very clearly. Longer sentences/harsher punishments for repeat offenders. I am not talking about sentencing someone to life imprisonment for "shoplifting a few dollars worth of stuff" or whatever other heart-wrenching example I am sure you will provide..

No you didn't. I asked you why you wanted longer sentences and you repeated that you want longer sentences. My "heart-wrenching example" was to show what happens when you decree minimum sentences on criminals and take away the power of judges to use their discretion with very minor offenses. As much as you might like them, harsher sentences don't deter criminals.

Most "motivations" for crime are easily understandable. Get money, quickly and easily. Very few people are forced into crime. It's up to themselves to stay clear of it. No amount of state support is going to cure the criminal lifestyle of some people.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said in your previous post that it was due to innate criminality (to paraphrase). So which is it? I agree that money is often a factor in crime, with poor people more likely to commit many types of crime than others. But does this mean that poor people are just thugs or do you think it would make more sense that poverty drives people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do? And what do you mean about state support?

..there are and I have provided a few that apply to most crimes.

Up to now you only mentioned getting money, apart from inherent criminal tendencies.

Money.. obtaining a sense of power/self-worth, and the concept of 'because I can'.

You could be talking about running a business with this little snippet. There's a difference between wanting money and breaking the law to get it.

Crime can best be prevented by the people who engage in it.

An individual crime can be best prevented by the person who would commit it. Criminal behaviour in general is a different issue.

prinz

RussellTuring wrote: »

No you didn't. I asked you why you wanted longer sentences....

Not quite, perhaps a quick recap of your question..

RussellTuring wrote: »

Do you want Three Strikes because you think it will deter crime or because you want to punish criminals with lengthy sentences?

Simple...

RussellTuring wrote: »

...and you repeated that you want longer sentences.

Yes, it's called answering the question asked.

RussellTuring wrote: »

My "heart-wrenching example" was to show what happens when you decree minimum sentences on criminals and take away the power of judges to use their discretion with very minor offenses...

We need a multiple strikes policy with regard to longer sentences, not a first strike policy. If someone doesn't learn their lesson the first two times, oh sorry the first 104, then I don't care about judicial discretion versus mandatory sentences.

RussellTuring wrote: »

As much as you might like them, harsher sentences don't deter criminals..

This is not particularly about deterring other criminals. However it may go some way to making sure habitual criminals are not in a position to repeat offend for a significant amount of time.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said in your previous post that it was due to innate criminality (to paraphrase). So which is it?

A criminal mindset or 'innate criminality' as above does not contradict a section of our society that holds the view that crime pays. If you hold the view that crime is a good way of getting rich quick and follow that path in an attempt to do so then you have a criminal mindset.

RussellTuring wrote: »

I agree that money is often a factor in crime, with poor people more likely to commit many types of crime than others. But does this mean that poor people are just thugs or do you think it would make more sense that poverty drives people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do? And what do you mean about state support?

I don't think there is any cause for a level of poverty that would drive some to need to shoplift say for food in the case of starvation/ malnutrition in this country. If someone wants to escape this 'poverty' there are ways and means and an already generous social system to help. Then it's up to the person in question to help themselves.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Up to now you only mentioned getting money, apart from inherent criminal tendencies.

I also mentioned opportunism and thuggery. There is nothing to be gained for example for stamping on someones head for kicks. There's not always a monetary gain, some people get their kicks from harrassing and terrorising others. It's very simple to understand this.... bullies looking for a sense of power and entertainment. Take for example the case last year of a man who received a suspended sentence for an arson attack on a car dealership which caused about €350,000 worth of damagers and put 50 odd jobs at risk. Three years suspended because he had a difficult life and was an otherwise upstanding gent, despite the 12 previous criminal convictions.... in the circumstances a suspended sentence is a joke, he thought so too when he was pictured leaving the court celebrating. That is a joke and a broken system.

RussellTuring wrote: »

You could be talking about running a business with this little snippet. There's a difference between wanting money and breaking the law to get it..

Could I indeed. Is there a point here? I'm failing to see one.

RussellTuring wrote: »

An individual crime can be best prevented by the person who would commit it. Criminal behaviour in general is a different issue.

Criminal behaviour is but a collection of individual crimes and people. Yes the state and society plays a role, but beyond that it's individual responsibility.

RussellTuring

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

I think the "3 Strike Rule" for the likes of shoplifting is ridiculous, but for more serious offences, why not? For example aggravated assault. If someone has done it three times, and been punished for it twice, then personally i think it's a fair enough guess that that person is going to do it again once they get out. I think someone like that should be put in jail for 20/25 years, and by the time they get out they will probably be close to 50 or 60 years of age, and by that time they would have substantially less risk of re-offending.

Why not? Because quite apart from the fact that it does not work in cutting down crime, it means giving a disproportionately high sentences to people based on an arbitrary number of previous convictions. If you want to lock people up for life because of aggravated assault, that's your opinion. But why do it on the third charge? Why not the first or second or fourth or fiftieth? If you think that locking people up in prison is a good way to prevent crime, why don't we just lock people up for life at the first sign of trouble? Or better yet, why does the USA have a quarter of the word's prisoners and such high crime rates?

prinz wrote: »

Yes, it's called answering the question asked.

Not at all. I'll make it as simple as I can for you one more time before I give up: you want longer/harsher sentences (correct me if I'm wrong). Is this because a) you think it will reduce crime or b) because you want to punish criminals more severely?

We need a multiple strikes policy with regard to longer sentences, not a first strike policy. If someone doesn't learn their lesson the first two times, oh sorry the first 104, then I don't care about judicial discretion versus mandatory sentences.

What first strike policy are you talking about? Three Strikes doesn't go by the number of cases but by the number of charges: if you are found guilty of two felonies in one case and later are found guilty of another, then you're out. You are effectively only given one chance in this instance. Also, if in your second trial you are found guilty of more than one felony, you can receive a life sentence for each one. So you can break the law once by beating the hell out of someone and receive a slap on the wrist, then 10 years later be found shoplifting a few items only to spend the remainder of your life in prison.

This is not particularly about deterring other criminals. However it may go some way to making sure habitual criminals are not in a position to repeat offend for a significant amount of time.

What's a "habitual criminal"? Someone who breaks the law two or three times?

A criminal mindset or 'innate criminality' as above does not contradict a section of our society that holds the view that crime pays. If you hold the view that crime is a good way of getting rich quick and follow that path in an attempt to do so then you have a criminal mindset.

So a criminal mindset means you commit crimes, and this is a motivation for committing crimes. Have you ever heard of circular reasoning?

I don't think there is any cause for a level of poverty that would drive some to need to shoplift say for food in the case of starvation/ malnutrition in this country. If someone wants to escape this 'poverty' there are ways and means and an already generous social system to help. Then it's up to the person in question to help themselves.

I'm not talking about stealing a loaf of bread. Poor people are more likely to go to prison for violent or drug related crimes. Poverty has negative effects on crime rates for other, less obvious reasons than being hungry and stealing food. Levels of education, health, employment are all connected to prosperity and significantly impact likelihood to commit crime.

I also mentioned opportunism and thuggery. There is nothing to be gained for example for stamping on someones head for kicks. There's not always a monetary gain, some people get their kicks from harrassing and terrorising others. It's very simple to understand this.... bullies looking for a sense of power and entertainment. Take for example ...

Opportunity to commit a crime and motivation are very different things. Thuggery is something used to describe the behaviour of people who commit crimes so it is hardly a motivator, rather a corequisite at best. Ad hoc ergo propter hoc.

Could I indeed. Is there a point here? I'm failing to see one.

The point was that your reasons for criminal activity aren't predictors for criminal behaviour.

Criminal behaviour is but a collection of individual crimes and people. Yes the state and society plays a role, but beyond that it's individual responsibility.

I'm not arguing that individual responsibility doesn't play a part in whether or not a person commits a crime. Far from it. I'm saying there are things we can do to prevent people making the decision to break the law when the opportunity arises.

wolf moon

Sykk wrote: »

Some.. yes.

yea, go for it, like these from florida:



The state constitution allows for freedom of speech, a trial by jury, and pregnant pigs to not be confined in cages.

One may not commit any “unnatural acts” with another person.

Unmarried couples may not commit “lewd acts” and live together in the same residence.

Corrupting the public morals is defined as a nuisance, and is declared a misdemeanor offense.

Doors of all public buildings must open outwards.

It is illegal to sell your children.

Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the
salon owner.

A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.

If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.

It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.

Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.

Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.

It is illegal to skateboard without a license.

When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.

You may not fart in a public place after 6 P.

It is considered an offense to shower naked.

You are not allowed to break more than three dishes per day, or chip the edges of more than four cups and/or saucers.

Oral sex is illegal.

You may not kiss your wife’s breasts.

Penalty for horse theft is death by hanging.


http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/alabama

RussellTuring

wolf moon wrote: »

yea, go for it, like these from florida:



The state constitution allows for freedom of speech, a trial by jury, and pregnant pigs to not be confined in cages.

It is illegal to sell your children.

Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.

What's wrong with these?

Your link says it's Alabama, by the way and not Florida.


http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/alabama

wolf moon

RussellTuring wrote: »

Your link says it's Alabama, by the way and not Florida.


http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/alabama

i foolishly clicked on united stated and alabama happened to be first, comes up automatically.

but here: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/florida

hope no one's gonna get confused now

RussellTuring

wolf moon wrote: »

i foolishly clicked on united stated and alabama happened to be first, comes up automatically.

but here: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/florida

hope no one's gonna get confused now

Cheers. But what's wrong with those laws I quoted?

wolf moon

RussellTuring wrote: »

Cheers. But what's wrong with those laws I quoted?

well, it's friday afternoon and in all fairness since i woke up today not a single fcuk was given... and i don't think it's gonna change any time until monday morning

RussellTuring

wolf moon wrote: »

well, it's friday afternoon and in all fairness since i woke up today not a single fcuk was given... and i don't think it's gonna change any time until monday morning

Ha. I just realised you pasted them all from the page rather than picking a few out so forget I said anything.

Eric Cartman

death penalty
right to own a gun
clamping illegal
no penalty points
actual sobriety testing - not just a breathaliser

prinz

RussellTuring wrote: »

Not at all. I'll make it as simple as I can for you one more time before I give up: you want longer/harsher sentences (correct me if I'm wrong). Is this because a) you think it will reduce crime or b) because you want to punish criminals more severely?

..and I have answered that question. Longer sentences as appropriate punishments in the cases of repeat offenders. Feel free to give up though, seeing as how most of what I am actually saying seems to be flying past you.

RussellTuring wrote: »

What first strike policy are you talking about?

Fairly clear once again. I do not favour throwing the book at people for shoplifting a few dollars worth as per your example. If that same person however had multiple convictions then yes their sentences should increase.

RussellTuring wrote: »

What's a "habitual criminal"? Someone who breaks the law two or three times?

Or twelve or one hundred and four.

RussellTuring wrote: »

So a criminal mindset means you commit crimes, and this is a motivation for committing crimes. Have you ever heard of circular reasoning?

It's not circular but there you go whoosh. A person with a criminal mindset is someone who sees criminality as a viable lifestyle choice as opposed to legally getting ahead in life. Who favours crime over a productive life. Stealing a car is easier than working and buying one, especially if your family and neighbours all agree.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Opportunity to commit a crime and motivation are very different things. Thuggery is something used to describe the behaviour of people who commit crimes so it is hardly a motivator, rather a corequisite at best.

See below, engaging in repeat episodes of criminality to establish yourself as a 'thug' or to place yourself in some sort of knuckle-dragging hierarchy. Engaging in criminality is sometimes seen as a badge of honour, so yes I'd say trying to get a rep as a dirtbag/proving yourself to criminal peers is a motivator in committing crimes.

RussellTuring wrote: »

The point was that your reasons for criminal activity aren't predictors for criminal behaviour..

Ah but they are. Coming from a background where criminality was accepted and normall is a predictor for future criminal activities particularly repeat or chronic criminality as are the other things I mentioned regarding crime as a method of establishing dominance, a reputation, a feeling of power or self worth. There's a book called Criminology by Larry Siegel, goes into this in more detail.

RussellTuring wrote: »

I'm not arguing that individual responsibility doesn't play a part in whether or not a person commits a crime. Far from it. I'm saying there are things we can do to prevent people making the decision to break the law when the opportunity arises.

Apart from further state support in the areas you mentioned such as education, health and employment, what things are there? What differentiates two people with equal opportunities, one turns to crime, the other doesn't?

RussellTuring

prinz wrote: »

..and I have answered that question. Longer sentences as appropriate punishments in the cases of repeat offenders. Feel free to give up though, seeing as how most of what I am actually saying seems to be flying past you.

Don't be so condescending. I was waiting for you to explicitly say whether you want to reduce crime or just punish criminals. You were never explicit in this so I'll just have to take it that you don't want to admit you'd prefer the latter. If that's so, I don't think we're going to get anywhere but I'll respond to your post to save being accused of not wanting to answer your questions. I want policies that actually prevent crime instead of giving people a sense that things are being done when they aren't.

Fairly clear once again. I do not favour throwing the book at people for shoplifting a few dollars worth as per your example. If that same person however had multiple convictions then yes their sentences should increase.

Not clear at all. I was talking about the detrimental effects of Three Strikes and you mention a "first strike policy", whatever that's supposed to be.

Or twelve or one hundred and four.

I'll take that as a yes.

It's not circular but there you go whoosh. A person with a criminal mindset is someone who sees criminality as a viable lifestyle choice as opposed to legally getting ahead in life. Who favours crime over a productive life. Stealing a car is easier than working and buying one, especially if your family and neighbours all agree.

So now you're saying that someone who thinks crime is a decent way of life will commit criminal acts. You're not exactly saying anything novel here, just stating the obvious.

See below, engaging in repeat episodes of criminality to establish yourself as a 'thug' or to place yourself in some sort of knuckle-dragging hierarchy. Engaging in criminality is sometimes seen as a badge of honour, so yes I'd say trying to get a rep as a dirtbag/proving yourself to criminal peers is a motivator in committing crimes.

Now that's more like it. I would totally agree that trying to impress peers is a good motivator for criminal behaviour.

Ah but they are. Coming from a background where criminality was accepted and normall is a predictor for future criminal activities particularly repeat or chronic criminality as are the other things I mentioned regarding crime as a method of establishing dominance, a reputation, a feeling of power or self worth. There's a book called Criminology by Larry Siegel, goes into this in more detail.

I'm not saying that criminals don't do what they do for money, reputation etc, but that these factors don't necessarily mean people will break the law as these traits are present in law-abiding people, presumably to similar degrees.

Apart from further state support in the areas you mentioned such as education, health and employment, what things are there? What differentiates two people with equal opportunities, one turns to crime, the other doesn't?

Well if it's two people with the same opportunities, that's a tricky question. From my own experience I would say that growing up poor and surrounded by crime makes it seem much easier to get involved in it. Those who don't are often the ones you might expect to. I think these are the people who see the negative side of crime and make a conscious effort not to fall into it.

However, the simple fact is we don't live in a country where all people have equal opportunities. Your hypothetical people with the same background will still have to contend with others who have more wealth, better education and family connections that they don't, even if they choose the legal path. Social inequality only further incentivises crime.

enda1

No. The US is an uncivilised barbarous place with regards its treatment those in difficult situations. Criminals are punished with little to no attempt to rehabilitate or tackle the route cause of the criminal act. Suspected criminals (read legally innocent people) are kept in horrific prisons until such time as the "justice" system decides its time for them to stand trial.

The UK is obviously in between. But some of its recent anti-terror laws such as 7 day custody without charge are clearly too long to be considered fair or civil. Again sentencing is too long and there is too much a punish culture.

Why do we look to crime ridden countries whose concept of justice is barely on the humane side of medieval torture in order to base our system, when we could look forward to the more socially progressed societies where criminality is seen as a failure of the state, thus the state feels obliged to correct its mistake through re-education and respect of the criminal?

prinz

RussellTuring wrote: »

Don't be so condescending. I was waiting for you to explicitly say whether you want to reduce crime or just punish criminals. You were never explicit in this so I'll just have to take it that you don't want to admit you'd prefer the latter. If that's so, I don't think we're going to get anywhere but I'll respond to your post to save being accused of not wanting to answer your questions. I want policies that actually prevent crime instead of giving people a sense that things are being done when they aren't.

Policies to prevent crime, and appropriate punishment of criminals who have already committed crime are two different issues and can be dealt with in two different ways. Giving a repeat offender a handy sentence after potentially destroying someone's life is not going to prevent that person offending again. Looking at the social issues and whatnot is admirable and should be done, but only with an aim to prevent future crimes and rehabilitate young offenders and people when they first come into contact with the justice system. Not giving an easy ride to someone with decades of criminality behind them.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Not clear at all. I was talking about the detrimental effects of Three Strikes and you mention a "first strike policy", whatever that's supposed to be..

..and I've pointed out that such a policy doesn't have to be life imprisonment for a third conviction. It can be something as simple as adding say six months to a sentence for future convictions when you get ten convictions or more, or removing the option for future automatic remission, or removing the option of suspended sentences etc.

RussellTuring wrote: »

I'll take that as a yes.

Take it whatever way you want to. I think we both know the difference between two or three and one hundred and four. If you want to treat them as the same, go right ahead.

RussellTuring wrote: »

So now you're saying that someone who thinks crime is a decent way of life will commit criminal acts. You're not exactly saying anything novel here, just stating the obvious..

The obvious needs to pointed out apparently.

RussellTuring wrote: »

However, the simple fact is we don't live in a country where all people have equal opportunities. Your hypothetical people with the same background will still have to contend with others who have more wealth, better education and family connections that they don't, even if they choose the legal path. Social inequality only further incentivises crime.

Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean crime should ever be an option, or that where crime is taken as an option it should be treated with more lenience. There is always somebody with more wealth, or better connections, or a better education. Always. Doesn't matter if you come from a so-called disadvantaged area or not. Improved social equality is a great thing to work for, but you don't get there by treating people differently before the law, and that works both ways, for and against both ends of the socio-economic scale.

enda1 wrote: »

..when we could look forward to the more socially progressed societies where criminality is seen as a failure of the state, thus the state feels obliged to correct its mistake through re-education and respect of the criminal?

Respect for the criminal comes when they turn their back on crime. Stating that criminality across the board is a failure of the state is one of life's major cop outs.

RussellTuring

prinz wrote: »

Policies to prevent crime, and appropriate punishment of criminals who have already committed crime are two different issues and can be dealt with in two different ways. Giving a repeat offender a handy sentence after potentially destroying someone's life is not going to prevent that person offending again. Looking at the social issues and whatnot is admirable and should be done, but only with an aim to prevent future crimes and rehabilitate young offenders and people when they first come into contact with the justice system. Not giving an easy ride to someone with decades of criminality behind them.

I never said it was a choice between the two. I asked if your reason for supporting a Three Strikes policy was because you thought it would prevent crime or because you saw it as an appropriate punishment for criminal behaviour. It was a simple binary question but apparently it was too difficult for you to give a straight answer.

..and I've pointed out that such a policy doesn't have to be life imprisonment for a third conviction. It can be something as simple as adding say six months to a sentence for future convictions when you get ten convictions or more, or removing the option for future automatic remission, or removing the option of suspended sentences etc.

With the point being what exactly? Do you think doing this will prevent people from re-offending or do you think that someone who commits a certain crime for the fifth time is that much worse than someone who does it for the third time? You can keep giving me different possibilities for how we can more harshly treat criminals but it's not going to make any impact on me unless you can actually give me a reason to do so. Anyway, what happened to your earlier suggestion of doubling the punishment for each conviction? Have you gotten softer over the course of a few days?

Take it whatever way you want to. I think we both know the difference between two or three and one hundred and four. If you want to treat them as the same, go right ahead.

You're the one who equated two and three to twelve and one hundred and four. I asked you a simple question as to at which number a person goes from being someone who has broken the law to a habitual law breaker and yet again didn't get a straight answer but a flippant evasion.

The obvious needs to pointed out apparently.

How so when I was the one who pointed it out? Getting back to the original point, you claimed that the main reason for a lot of criminal activity was a criminal mindset and plain thuggery and when I asked you to define these, you told me they were when people saw crime as a viable way to get ahead in life, i.e. people commit crimes because they are criminals because they commit crimes.

Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean crime should ever be an option, or that where crime is taken as an option it should be treated with more lenience. There is always somebody with more wealth, or better connections, or a better education. Always. Doesn't matter if you come from a so-called disadvantaged area or not. Improved social equality is a great thing to work for, but you don't get there by treating people differently before the law, and that works both ways, for and against both ends of the socio-economic scale.

Who on Earth suggested any of this? I pointed out the fact that social inequality exists and that it was a reason for much crime so should be tackled, and your response is that it exists but we should treat everyone equally before the law. I'm not arguing with you here but what has this got to do with the point at hand?

Further to my point that a person who decides to follow the legal route will still have to compete with people have great advantages over them, what do you suggest as a way of keeping them on the right side of the law? Why should they reject the often easier option of crime, other than it being illegal?