A guy in Iran confessed to robbing a candy store, so the judge orders his hand amputated.
I understand this was to set an example, but really, is there any reliable information–from Iran or otherwise–that says this kind of sentencing actually keeps people from committing such crimes?
I would bet that this particular guy won’t repeat his offence once his stump heals up…:eek:
Our daughter and her husband have been in Saudi Arabia for about ten years. (He is a petroleum engineer and works for Aramco - he retires in 16 months and they will be coming back home permanently 
)
When they first went over she said that she bought a new stereo. The clerk said he would have it boxed up and set outside on the sidewalk in front of the store so she could pick it up when she finished shopping. He assured her it would still be there when she left. It was.
The store is in Kobar which I understand is not a small town and the street outside the store was pretty busy.
It appears that the strict law does have some effect on crime.
You can’t draw any sort of conclusions about harsh sentencing from just looking at one country. You could do the same thing in some European countries too.
If you look back to the Soviet Union and other Eastern block countries you’ll find crime was a lot less when the sentences were harsh.
But you have to remember a lot (if not most) of the real violent crime is drugs. If you take drugs out of the picture (drugs and associated crimes) you find crime falls no matter where you are.
As in organized crime or transaction between dealer and or crimes committed by addicts b/c they are so desperate for the next fix?
Sentences are still harsh in Russia. The Russian crime rate increase since the 1980s were largely due to the collapse of communism, severe economic problems and a large number of people’s standards of living dropped massively.
I believe most of the studies have shown that the single factor that most closely matches to the frequency of crime is the economic situation (amount of poverty) in the society. As they say, “there’s always jobs in crime”.
Drugs are relevant because of their connection to poverty – they are so expensive that drug users are driven into poverty. (And they are so expensive because they are illegal, and sold only by criminals.)
I’ve been to Singapore and their tough laws work. Everything is clean and beautiful. Littering, graffiti etc. are absolutely not tolerated. I love Singapore and can’t wait until my next visit.
I suspect their over all crime rate is much lower than other countries. A tough approach works wonders.
Do Russia’s tough laws work? Does the United States tough laws work?
Or how about the other way. Do Norway’s lax laws fail to work? Do Iceland’s lax laws fail to work?
But then, Singapore is run dictatorially, by a small group from a single party, with lots of human rights violations, election fraud, limits on free speech, etc.
I consider those crimes, and much more important ones than ‘littering’. And since they limit everyone in the country, crime is not reduced, but vastly widespread.
Exactly.
The price we pay for not living in a police state is litter, graffiti, and the risk of getting mugged. I think it’s worth it.
“Freedom isn’t free” is a true statement, and it doesn’t only apply when trying to justify putting the lives of other people halfway around the world in danger.
I agree living in a police state is not ideal.
I was responding to the OP’s question. Extremely tough laws work. Singapore is pristine and sparkling. But as you pointed out the loss of freedom is a very high price. There’s security cameras everywhere in Singapore.
:rolleyes:
When I first moved back to LA, I had a conversation that went something like this:
Acquaintance: Man, how can you live in Hollywood? Venice Beach is so much nicer! I can leave my doors unlocked when I go out, can you?
Me: I’ve been to your neighborhood. Are you telling me you leave your doors unlocked and nobody ever breaks in and steals your stuff.
Acquaintance: What? Oh no, my stuff gets stolen at least once a year. But it’s so easy to get weed here that nobody really cares.
I guess there are tradeoffs wherever you live. I’m sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to live in a police state if it meant being able to leave a TV on the sidewalk and not worry about it. The tragedy isn’t that such places exist; it’s that most people don’t get to choose whether or not they live there.
If it exists, I would compare a decrease in crime due to harsh visible punishment such as amputating a limb to deter theft, to the scarlet letter syndrome. In our society, thieves or potential thieves are aware that getting caught may temporarily land them in jail as punishment. How much crime this prevents is unknown. Once released, walking around town doesn’t advertise your past actions.
If apprehended thieves were punished by having a hand amputated and allowed to roam society, current or would-be thieves would have more of a visual and perhaps more frequent reminder of the permanent consequences of theft. Obviously, the punished thief would have a constant reminder of his deed as opposed to mentally attempting to put any time jailed in the Gray Bar Hotel behind him.
I’m not advocating it but it’s an interesting concept. I do agree that any success with this type of punishment depends on the society.
Weirdly, no.
Look at Nazi Germany. They had regular police who had unlimited powers. They had criminal courts backed by limitless government power. People still committed petty crimes.
Look at this country. Islam has been punishing people for 14 centuries. More than that, the faith has been teaching them for generations. We still have crime.
Is it more or less than it would have been in some other case? I suppose that is unknowable. The lowest crime societies are probably those that have to closest social ties.
This makes sense to me, but is the occurrence of robbery in Iran any lower because of sentences like this? I suppose it’s not that common, since the sentence made its way to the AP wire.
So is this sentence just because there was something particularly bad about the robbery, or is it to “send a message,” because robberies are on the rise?
Or do they do this purely for moral reasons?
The is a lot of adultry in Iran though this is a “crime” that is punishable by death by stoning. There is a very high rate of heroine abuse and prostitution is not uncommon as well despite harsh penalties for these things.
When you are poor and desperate punishment is not a deterrent…