Stricter justic better, perhaps eye for eye

In the United States many agree that the current justice system is broken, but there seems no better alternative. People go to jail are usually not rehabilitated but rather a more hardened criminal. I’m not suggesting it but rather pondering the idea. What if the united states went to eye for and eye or just in general much stricter punishments other than jail time.

Ever heard of hanged for a penny, hanged for a pound? Strict punishments simplicitor do not reduce crime, if anything they are counter productive.

Then the country would get worse, crime would become more common and more brutal. Brutality breeds brutality; we did exactly what you are suggesting in the past and the result was far more violence and general nastiness than you see today.

Eye for an eye doesn’t mean what you think it does. It’s actually a call for a measured and tempered response. In other words, if someone takes your eye, don’t kill them, but respond in a controlled way. That is what we do now. We don’t overreact to crime and mete out excessive punishments. To do otherwise is not civilized.

If I were a criminal, I’d be even more tempted to kill my victim. That way I’d be sure there were no witnesses.

I dont really understand how it could be counter productive. I meant to add in there only for extreme crimes or repeat offenders. I just don’t see how jail time is always a just response, as well as putting people in jail costs the government money, and more often than not people who go to prison are in no way rehabilitated. Maybe its cruel but it seems more efficient and just than just throwing people in prison on the governments dollar.

What’s your evidence that the justice system is broken and doesn’t work, and that more brutal punishment would be more effective?

Actually some places are finding that a much more lax prison system is much more effective in rehabilitating prisoners.

Uh, one more time please, with a little more clarity? Maybe what is more cruel?

But let me ask you this: Texas executes more people than any state. Yet, the murder rates in Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Corpus Christi are significantly above the national average. If strict justice systems deter crime, why would anyone murder someone in Texas?

Aren’t most people who in jail convicted for drug-related offenses?

How would “eye for an eye” punishment work in this case?

In Soviet Russia, pot smoke you!

Yeah, I got nothin’

There might be something to this, my only example is the Mafia. In Italy Mussolini took on the mafia, but in the US the political and law enforcement were more restrained on what they could do. Some mafia came to the US to escape Mussolini’s rule.

Maybe extremely harsh suppression of hardcore gang members could do the same thing. But would it be worth it? Being truly harsh involves using torture and cruel punishment, or harming the family members of criminals (ie having the police beat up the parents of criminals). Even if it were legal, you are still going to have to harm a lot of innocent people to fight crime (which makes it pointless since crime is bad because it hurts innocent people). Plus you run the risk of creating a hardcore bitter cell of resistance that will do anything to get revenge. For every person you scare off, there is another you turn into a vengeful sociopath.

On the other hand, David Kennedy wrote a book called ‘don’t shoot’ where he outlines his method of stopping serious crime in the worst parts of the ghetto. Get the parents of the worst gang members together with the police, priests and community leaders. Then catch all the worst members committing serious crimes. Get all the serious gang members together, have their family, priests, etc. tell them that they need them to stop harming the neighborhood. then have the police tell them that they have evidence of serious felonies that could result in decades in prison. Tell them that if they continue being criminals that charges will be filed. If they don’t, the community will allow them to reintegrate.

Supposedly it worked fairly well. After the intervention and threat of serious jail time of all the serious gang members, crime drops.

Given the choice between suppressing gang violence using Mussolini tactics vs David Kennedy tactics, it is a no brainer. But realistically, yeah, harsh suppression may actually work. But it would also create massive distrust and hate for the government and law enforcement.

Have the guards blaze up and have a good time right in front of their cells. That’ll learn 'um.

@pbbth: that is quite the awesome idea.

No. Only about a quarter of the US prison population has ever been convicted of a drug offense, so less than a quarter are currently incarcerated for drug offenses. Still too many, but much less than half.

That’s much too black and white. People will always commit crime no matter the punishment, and there are many other factors than the punishment that go into crime especially those where the punishment is great, such is the case of murder. Your right in the sense that yes life in prison is equivalent to death. But in Texas there not paying to keep all those criminals alive for their life time. I think harsher punishments would deter people who repeat offend lesser felonies. If it was first time ok, second time don’t do it again, third time the grave maybe people would think harder about that second and third time. But, yes in the case of committing crimes like murder yes most the time people don’t think or care of the consequences.

A bigger hammer is always the answer.

What is the purpose of the stricter punishments?

Less crimes being comitted or a more satifying feeling of vengeance?

Because if the goal is less crimes comitted, we’d have to suppose that countries with less strict punishments should have more crimes comitted. Does this prediction fit with observed reality?

Thing is, most criminals are only criminals because they’re very stupid, and aren’t very good at thinking ahead. They commit crimes because they have poor impulse control and they think they’ll get away with it. I doubt the threat of severe punishment is going to have much effect against that kind of “logic”.

I’ve long been a lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type. My gut feeling is that people should be vigorously and enthusiastically punished for felony-level crimes. “We just ain’t gettin’ their attention.” was a common sentiment of mine.

But…

This is one of those things where the facts just don’t back up my (former) beliefs. I’ve simply got to admit that the current methods seem to be working. Most crime is way down, and I’m not about to argue with success. As much as I’d prefer to see revenge, harsh punishments may not work the way I thought. I’m a hardcore rightwinger on most things, but I figure the lefties won this round. (At least I associate more moderate punishment with the left).

In short, the legal system isn’t broken. It’s doing a pretty good job.

It does, to a degree; Florida’s gun crime sentencing law (imposing minimum penalties for carrying, drawing or firing a gun during the commission of an unrelated crime) does appear to have reduced the use of firearms in robberies.

It’s a very specific issue, though; whether or not to carry a firearm is a conscious choice made beforehand.