Deterrence / Let's play these videos in school!

[Lewkowski]

We know that people who would violently beat, kill, murder, rape etc have no morals. How then do we control the portion of the population without ethics? The only answer of course is fear of the consequences of their actions. Which is why I have long advocated the use of the Death Penalty, harsh sentencing and the viewing of criminals being killed (self defense) in classrooms.

Now this has offended the more faint hearted individuals on this forum so I won't be posting any stories about criminals dying. Instead please enjoy the various video clips of criminals going through great emotional distress. Hopefully it will bring a smile to your face during this happy Holiday season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcoUpqVaD00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TY_Sx14iUY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b90GQUmOhNY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dptnnP0Jquw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFaYvsUhemE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQy6KNx4d-s


On a more serious note - many individuals don't believe deterrence works. I find this absolutely baffling - however if your belief truly is deterrence does not work, what exactly would work? We know the scum has no moral compass so that's out as control mechanism. If they won't act in their best interests to avoid prison, clearly they need to be in prison LONGER as the only safe way to prevent them from committing more crimes.

[Timbuk2]

faint-hearted

[Lewkowski]

faint-hearted

If the shoe fits...

[Aimless]

Er, Lewk, I think you need to go back and read what your opponents have actually written on this forum about these matters. Go on, we'll be waiting.

[Khendraja'aro]

Here's a very detailed description of why you are simply wrong, Lewk.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=98

[Lewkowski]

Here's a very detailed description of why you are simply wrong, Lewk.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=98

Except people go through internal cost-benefit analysis ALL the time. Criminals do this all the time. In areas of high gun distribution robberies tend to occur when the criminal has a reasonable suspicion no one is home.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control...rime-and-guns/

Some stats include survey of felons which showed 60% were deterred by the possibility the victim may have had a gun. The site also shows the difference in 'hot burglaries' (where the victim is home) occurs much more frequently in places in Britain than in states where people can carry guns.

Absolutely some crime (crimes of passion) won't be deterred by consequences however the argument that 'it won't stop all crime' is rather poor and as I've shown, criminals DO take into consideration the consequences.

Furthermore we have other evidence that crime is reduced when you increase the amount of police officers in the area.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/m...issue_id=52012

Why? Because again there is a fear of getting caught, ie deterrence is working!

In a way even though I disagree with the major premise of your link (that few crimes will be deterred by deterrence) it does give us one gem. The *PERCEPTION* of the punishment is what matters the most. This is why it is critical to put these types of videos in front of kids. Not only does it give clear examples of criminals getting caught (therefore creating the perception that crime is punished) it also shows deep emotional trauma. Because while people regularly make an internal cost benefit analysis they don't always do it logically. People make decisions on emotions too. Seeing a criminal have an emotional breakdown can be a powerful message that will hopefully send chills down their spine. And when they look to do their first crime hopefully they will remember that criminal and say 'shit maybe not..."

In addition as I've stated before if a violent criminal does not respond to deterrence than clearly that are not a rational person have already demonstrated a propensity for violence and should be kept away from other people. Releasing a rabid dog into a city is horrible - yet we seem to do this all the time. Harsh sentencing is wonderful even if there is NO deterrence effect because criminals behind bars can't create more victims.

[Aimless]

Why? Because again there is a fear of getting caught, ie deterrence is working!

It's interesting that the authors observed that

Overall, this theoretical explanation is consistent with the conclusion of deterrence researchers that certainty of apprehension plays a stronger role than severity of punishment as a mechanism of general deterrence (Durlauf and Nagin, 2011; Nagin, 2010; Nagin and Pogarsky, 2001).

[...]

In a recent randomized experiment, the tactic of saturation patrol in police cars was found to underperform problem-oriented policing interventions (Taylor, Koper, and Woods, 2011). It may be that not only are vehicle-bound patrol officers unable to impact crime levels significantly, but also that foot patrol officers develop greater situational knowledge. A useful future direction with any foot patrol studies would be to develop in officers an appreciation for the merits of a problem-solving/problem-oriented policing approach that could leverage their local knowledge developed over months of foot patrol into a long-term problem reduction strategy.

Moreover, they found that the intervention in question was only effective when a certain threshold was reached in terms of number of violent crimes, and obv the findings were limited to a specific setting (outdoors only).

Finally the study has little to do with your OP.

[Lewkowski]

It's interesting that the authors observed that



Moreover, they found that the intervention in question was only effective when a certain threshold was reached in terms of number of violent crimes, and obv the findings were limited to a specific setting (outdoors only).

Finally the study has little to do with your OP.

The study indicates that more officers out and about leads to fewer crime. Why is this? One obvious conclusion is that criminals are less likely to do crimes in front of officers or if they believe officers are nearby. This jives with other data that areas with long police response time tend to have higher crime rates (with some exceptions in very flung rural areas but they are obvious outliers). ALL of that implies that criminals frequently analyze situations and determine the costs and benefits of doing their actions. Even if they don't know what they are doing it is ingrained human behavior to avoid bad things.

[Khendraja'aro]

Except people go through internal cost-benefit analysis ALL the time.

No, they don't, Lewk. What do you think a "crime of passion" is?

Hint: It does not involve rational thought in any way.

Then again, you yourself are a great example of how people can live on without any kind of active thought all their lives.

Hey you admit that deterrence works! Now explain that to Khendra

I never said that it does not work. I always said that it doesn't work the way you think it works and also that it is part of a trifecta of factors which need to be considered carefully for deterrence to have any effect.

However I expect that distinction to fully fly over your head.

[Enoch the Red]

No, they don't, Lewk. What do you think a "crime of passion" is?

Hint: It does not involve rational thought in any way.

Then again, you yourself are a great example of how people can live on without any kind of active thought all their lives.

I am not following this particular line of thinking. Are you saying that because some crimes are done in the heat of the moment, that people never do a cost/benefit analysis on when, where, and how to commit a crime? Lewk had already acknowledged, in the very post you quoted, that crimes of passion exist and are not affected by deterrents or consequences, but surely you recognize that not all crime, or even most crimes can be categorized as such.

[Lewkowski]

Why should I? If you had followed the series of comics he linked to or, I dunno, read his posts, you'd have realised by now that Khen doesn't deny the existence of deterrence. He simply believes that it doesn't work they way you believe it works.

What % of crime do you think is literal heat of the moment and/or done by crazies? Taking a WAG I'd say 20%. Most crime is done after people have considered at least some of the consequences.

If you really subscribed to this way of thinking even you would believe in anthropogenic climate change and support any measures necessary to curb it. You'd also support a far more expansive and generous welfare state.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...rming-industry

"In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” Of course, England still exists, and its population was doing much better in 2000 than when Ehrlich made his kooky claims. But long before 2000, Ehrlich had abandoned global-cooling alarmism in favor of warning that the Earth faced catastrophic global warming. Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.

To combat the alleged man-made cooling, “experts” suggested all sorts of grandiose schemes, including some that in retrospect appear almost too comical to be real. “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects,” reported Newsweek in its 1975 article “The Cooling World,” which claimed that Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities. Some of the “more spectacular solutions” proposed by the cooling theorists at the time included “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,” Newsweek reported."

Too many wrong predictions and too much agenda driven science for me to take the alarmists seriously. Runaway global warming scares are just that... scares. However this is rather far afield to our discussion.

Regarding Welfare - don't be absurd. Welfare causes more hardship than it causes because it creates government dependency and generational poverty. Its like giving money to a homeless person, something that actually *HURTS* them and is one of the worst things you can do for the person. (Giving directly to homeless is bad on almost all levels, if you feel compelled to help provide money to homeless shelters, food banks, etc). And again, off subject.

What you are is missing the point, as usual. If faced with direct and mutually exclusive choices, sure, child comes before old person. But does that mean that we should spit on and torture old people? No. If we can save both, do we still save only the child? No. The "value" of the old person's life is only relevant when we have to make a life-or-death decision based on that value and it is entirely irrelevant to the inherent wrongness of cruel and inhumane treatment.

If I have to choose between saving my dear old mother's life and saving your sorry ass from drowning, I'd obviously choose to save my mother in a heartbeat. Not only is she my mother, she's also a kind and loving person who'll do more good for people in her remaining years of life than you would do if you had ten times as many years. In that scenario, your life may as well be worthless. However, if you were to come into my ER close to death, I'd try to save even you.

Similarly, if I had to choose between saving a rapist and saving a drowning baby, I'd choose to save the baby. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go out looking for rapists to kill. Why? Because I'm not fucked up.

The point, which you are partially agreeing with, is that any sane moral outlook of the world will conclude that not ALL life is equal and worthy. That some people are more or less deserving of being saved. This is the linchpin of why I'm OK with criminals enduring more suffering since not all suffering is equal either. So can we at least agree all life is not equal?

Give it a rest you fucking hypocrite. Don't come here yapping about how much you care about babies and rape-victims. You actively support policies that contribute to the suffering and death of innocent babies and women. And, as for rape, you barely even believe rape exists and you spend a considerable amount of energy contributing to the culture that excuses rape and harrasses rape-victims. So don't pretend that you care in any meaningful way about innocent babies and women, that you value them infinitely highly, that you'd go to any lengths to save them.

What kind of liberal claptrap are you spewing? Rape obviously exists... and just as obviously FALSE accusations of rape exist. In fact false accusations of rape are a particularly heinous crime because it hurts true rape victims. Being in favor of punishing obviously false rape accusations actually helps real rape victims. However liberals seem too incompetent to understand this and seem to constantly back anyone who cries wolf. (Looking at you Rolling Stone).

If you place any value on anyone other than yourself, it is a finite and small value. This isn't about how much you care about innocent people. It's about how hard your dick gets at the thought of criminals getting killed. Which, frankly, is creepy and disgusting and a total failure on the part of whoever it was that tried to raise you to be a decent human being.

No criminals were killed in this thread. And blood is on the hands of the criminal appeasers. I do hope that parole boards who grant parole to criminals who later kill are plagued with guilt for the rest of their lives because blood is on their hands. Liberals like to think themselves morally superior but again their actions are only at the surface. "Look at how nice we are, how humane, we treat our criminals well!" And then never think about the consequences! They get to have their conscious clear even though they are responsible for suffering. And yet we this over and over and over again in liberal policies they seem utterly incapable of understanding the ramifications of their policies. Example - minimum wage, lets use it to help the poorest of the poor. Oh but wait that means some poor people lose their job all together... oops. What is it out human nature that liberals cannot seem to understand?

Except that it's not at all clear-cut what is or is not in society's best interest to do. It may be in society's best interest to not have too many people locked up. It may be in society's interest to free up some of that money and those resources for other purposes. It may be in society's best interest to rehabilitate 9 out of 10 (like in your example) or even to rehabilitate 3 out of 10. It may be in society's best interest to rehabilitate a few people that can return to their families and do a better job of raising their kids rather than forcing those kids to grow up in single-parent households with no support from society. It may be in society's interest to do things that will reduce crime in the future, by guiding would-be criminals to more productive paths.

Just because your life is governed by fear and hatred doesn't mean that it's in society's best interest to do what you want. It may be in society's best interest to take risks. You're free to live a life free from personal risk if you like, but I suspect that life would be kinda shitty.

How many people a year are you OK to be raped and murdered in favor of attempting rehabilitation? Surely you have some kind of limit, I'm curious at what number of rapes you're OK with.

He should be in prison for however long may be appropriate as punishment. While in prison he should be made to go through a rehabilitation process. As time progresses, he should be prepared to re-enter society. If there is any great concern that he hasn't been rehabilitated, he should stay locked up until that changes. When released, measures should be taken to reduce the likelihood of recidivism.

What kind of pathetic answer is this? "however long may be appropriate as punishment." LOL I'm asking you a direct question. Amazing how blithely you condemn innocents to rape and possible death. Because by golly those rapists deserve a second chance!

Now, let me ask you this. A black guy claims he was raped by a 20-y-o man. There is no doubt they had sex (semen was found on him etc). There's an 80% chance it was rape. If there's no conviction, there's a 100% chance of him raping some other black guy in the next 5 years. The alleged rapist is white. Do you lock him up even though there's a 20% chance he didn't rape anyone? What if there was a 30% chance he was innocent? Do you let him go even though there's an 80% chance he did it and is certain to do it again? Do you lock him up in order to deter all the other (as yet undiscovered) rapists watching the trial? Or do you, I dunno, badmouth the alleged victim publicly and explain that it was just some gay black dude with buyer's remorse trying to make a buck off of some poor innocent white kid?

I don't have the power to convict that is the hands of a jury. However as society we do have the power to pass sentencing laws. If I could look into my crystal ball had absolutely knowledge of your percentages AND had absolutely control of the jury than clearly he should be locked up because there is a 100% chance of him raping someone in the next 5 years. I have no idea why you bring race into it other than of course it is relevant to you because you're a liberal.

I figure if you really want to deter rapists, the best way to do it is to make sure more rapists get caught and convicted. If deterring rape is what you really want. I'm pretty sure it's not what you want.

You're kind of an ass you know? Are you seriously suggesting that I'm not in favor of deterring rape? I absolutely want more rapists caught and strung up. I don't think I've ever held a position that even hinted otherwise. However I don't want to railroad people simply because someone cries rape. You can be in favor for tough sentences for murder without automatically supporting the conviction of people charged with murder on the basis of 'I said he did it.' Evidence and all that jazz is kind of important.

[Khendraja'aro]

I am not following this particular line of thinking. Are you saying that because some crimes are done in the heat of the moment, that people never do a cost/benefit analysis on when, where, and how to commit a crime? Lewk had already acknowledged, in the very post you quoted, that crimes of passion exist and are not affected by deterrents or consequences, but surely you recognize that not all crime, or even most crimes can be categorized as such.

You seem to subscribe to Lewk's line of non-thinking as well. Lewk stated that people ALWAYS (emphasis mine) do a cost-benefit analysis. I provided one EXAMPLE how this is not so (there are plenty more).

Furthermore, you could also benefit from actually reading the comic (which is based on _real_ psychology) to see how ineffective a tool deterrence actually is.

[Lewkowski]

No, they don't, Lewk. What do you think a "crime of passion" is?

Hint: It does not involve rational thought in any way.

Then again, you yourself are a great example of how people can live on without any kind of active thought all their lives.



I never said that it does not work. I always said that it doesn't work the way you think it works and also that it is part of a trifecta of factors which need to be considered carefully for deterrence to have any effect.

However I expect that distinction to fully fly over your head.

So how do you suppose we test the effectiveness of deterrence? Should we take a look at a community before and after a massive police surge took place and examine crime rates? Should we take a look at crime rates before and after mandatory sentencing. In other words how would you go about falsifying your own argument? I admit there are A LOT of variables to consider (police effectiveness, economy, culture, guns, knowledge of sentences, corruption, etc) but I've seen examples where harsh sentencing has reduced crime. Of course the trick is figuring out what % of it was due to criminals being behind bars and what % was due to fear.

[Aimless]

I don't know why I keep tuning in every week to see Lewk vs. The Diminishing returns when I know it's gonna end, as it always does, with him not figuring it out.

[Lewkowski]

I don't know why I keep tuning in every week to see Lewk vs. The Diminishing returns when I know it's gonna end, as it always does, with him not figuring it out.

Him not figuring out what exactly? Let me ask you - do you think longer prison sentences leads to fewer crimes? Is that your bone of contention? Or is it that you think specifically deterrence never works? Or is it that you think precious snowflakes should never be harmed even if they threaten law abiding citizens with crime? Clarify what you are specifically against.

[Aimless]

I think I'm mostly "against" your persistent inability/disinclination to read. How many years has it been now, Lewk? How many times are you going to have to be told the same things over and over again? More importantly, how many times should I for example have to explain my position to you, knowing that you will either deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent it or set up retarded straw-men or just forget it entirely the next time you get boners over criminals getting killed or the like?

Okay, I'll try one more time. When it comes to deterrence, just because punishment-levels 3 - 6 have some significant measurable and increasing deterrent effect on crime doesn't mean that levels 7 - 10 will have as great an impact. It is possible or plausible that, with increasingly severe punishments, the additional deterrent effect will be lower and lower. This is the first bone of contention: the view that you can always simply reduce crime further and further by turning up the punishment-severity dial no matter where you are on the scale.

But of course there's more. For some of us, the expected gains from a punishment have to be weighed against the expected costs. Some of these costs are of eg. the economical variety while others are of the ethical or philosophical variety. Your worldview is such that you believe it is right and proper to completely disregard the rights of criminals, because you view them as subhuman. Therefore, as far as you're concerned, there is no ethical cost associated with subjecting criminals to ever-more cruel punishments.

My view, in contrast, is firstly that criminals are still human and as such have some rights (the violation of which constitute a cost), and, secondly, that a society that regularly demotes humans to the status of animals--and then takes pleasure in torturing them or destroying them--is a rotten, damaged, vile and altogether tragic society. I believe this not because I value criminals higher than innocent little children and bunny-rabbits but because I place a great deal of value on preserving the humanity and plain decency of ordinary "innocent" human beings. You might say safeguarding the purity--such as it is--of your disgusting little soul is more important to me than the satisfaction of seeing criminals get what's coming to them. And that is the second bone of contention: the view that it is right and proper for decent people to treat criminals as animals, or even less than animals.

As for the study, the study does not support whatever dumb shit it was you were proposing in the OP. You may imagine it does, but it doesn't really. So you may as well let it go. Do something more productive.

[Being]

I think I'm mostly "against" your persistent inability/disinclination to ....

Save your fingers and just type then/than.

[Lewkowski]

I think I'm mostly "against" your persistent inability/disinclination to read. How many years has it been now, Lewk? How many times are you going to have to be told the same things over and over again? More importantly, how many times should I for example have to explain my position to you, knowing that you will either deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent it or set up retarded straw-men or just forget it entirely the next time you get boners over criminals getting killed or the like?

Okay, I'll try one more time. When it comes to deterrence, just because punishment-levels 3 - 6 have some significant measurable and increasing deterrent effect on crime doesn't mean that levels 7 - 10 will have as great an impact. It is possible or plausible that, with increasingly severe punishments, the additional deterrent effect will be lower and lower. This is the first bone of contention: the view that you can always simply reduce crime further and further by turning up the punishment-severity dial no matter where you are on the scale.

Hey you admit that deterrence works! Now explain that to Khendra. So let's take you analogy, punishments 3-6 have a strong deterrence effect however after level 6 it seems to have diminishing returns. The problem is we aren't that precise. You can't put X sentence and explain that this will lead to a specific Y decline in crime, and that by going to a slighter higher sentence you don't get as much bang for your buck. Society has too many variables for it to work perfectly. And of course if we were to err one way or the other, we should err on the side of caution we should do what keeps the populace safe from the criminal element.

But of course there's more. For some of us, the expected gains from a punishment have to be weighed against the expected costs. Some of these costs are of eg. the economical variety while others are of the ethical or philosophical variety. Your worldview is such that you believe it is right and proper to completely disregard the rights of criminals, because you view them as subhuman. Therefore, as far as you're concerned, there is no ethical cost associated with subjecting criminals to ever-more cruel punishments.

For violent criminals, thieves, rapists, child molester, arsonists and murderers yes I feel society should treat them as sub human. The moral calculus is rather simple to me, not all life should be treated equally. This is inherently true though some people like to dance around that issue. If two people were drowning and you could save only one which would it be? An old person or a child? A serial rapists or a law abiding citizen? We would make those choices almost instinctively. We save the child because he has more to lose (higher life expectancy) and we save the law abiding citizen because the rapist is trash. I'm just honest enough to say it.

My view, in contrast, is firstly that criminals are still human and as such have some rights (the violation of which constitute a cost), and, secondly, that a society that regularly demotes humans to the status of animals--and then takes pleasure in torturing them or destroying them--is a rotten, damaged, vile and altogether tragic society. I believe this not because I value criminals higher than innocent little children and bunny-rabbits but because I place a great deal of value on preserving the humanity and plain decency of ordinary "innocent" human beings. You might say safeguarding the purity--such as it is--of your disgusting little soul is more important to me than the satisfaction of seeing criminals get what's coming to them. And that is the second bone of contention: the view that it is right and proper for decent people to treat criminals as animals, or even less than animals.

As for the study, the study does not support whatever dumb shit it was you were proposing in the OP. You may imagine it does, but it doesn't really. So you may as well let it go. Do something more productive.

Sorry but rapists are scum. The man who shook a baby to death? Fuck. Him. Back to my drowning example an infinite number of people like him drowning is worth less than one innocent child. The fact that you could come to a different conclusion is shocking. In fact I don't think you necessarily disagree its just you want to have it both ways. You want to treat everyone 'with dignity' or some nonsense but the simple fact is that recidivism occurs. The criminal is still solely responsible for their actions but society is culpable when we allow dangerous and violent people back on the streets to harm again. Because again knowledge isn't perfect - we don't necessarily know who will harm others again. If we did then it would be fine but since we can't know we again have to go to some moral calculus.

If 1/10 of criminals will rape or kill again, letting 10 of them back out into society means we let one innocent person suffer for the sake of 10 criminals. And my math says that the 10 criminals had their shot, they fucking blew it and 10 of their lives and happiness doesn't equate to the one person who gets brutalized by them. However we are now talking about multiple subjects. As I said before there are TWO great things about harsh sentencing.

1. Deterrence effect - leads to less crime as a whole. This is further strengthen by doing what I suggested in OP - show video of criminals emotionally collapsing after being found guilty and/or sentenced.

2. Can't do more crime because they are in prison. This is simple even without deterrence it is still in society's best interest to keep the person locked up.

Now let me ask you this. A 20 year old assault and rapes someone. There is no shadow of a doubt, the assault was caught on camera, his semen was found on her, etc etc. How long should he remain in prison? And after you answer that, assume there is a 10% chance that if he is released he will rape again. Should he ever be released?


The purpose of linking the study was just in response to Khend who thinks deterrence rarely works because most crime isn't done by rational people. I disagree with that perspective because criminals make decisions that lower their likelihood of being caught and of being shot by a homeowner which demonstrates that they often do take into consideration the consequences of their actions.

[Aimless]

Hey you admit that deterrence works! Now explain that to Khendra.

Why should I? If you had followed the series of comics he linked to or, I dunno, read his posts, you'd have realised by now that Khen doesn't deny the existence of deterrence. He simply believes that it doesn't work they way you believe it works.

So let's take you analogy, punishments 3-6 have a strong deterrence effect however after level 6 it seems to have diminishing returns. The problem is we aren't that precise. You can't put X sentence and explain that this will lead to a specific Y decline in crime, and that by going to a slighter higher sentence you don't get as much bang for your buck. Society has too many variables for it to work perfectly. And of course if we were to err one way or the other, we should err on the side of caution we should do what keeps the populace safe from the criminal element.

If you really subscribed to this way of thinking even you would believe in anthropogenic climate change and support any measures necessary to curb it. You'd also support a far more expansive and generous welfare state.

If two people were drowning and you could save only one which would it be? An old person or a child? A serial rapists or a law abiding citizen? We would make those choices almost instinctively. We save the child because he has more to lose (higher life expectancy) and we save the law abiding citizen because the rapist is trash. I'm just honest enough to say it.

What you are is missing the point, as usual. If faced with direct and mutually exclusive choices, sure, child comes before old person. But does that mean that we should spit on and torture old people? No. If we can save both, do we still save only the child? No. The "value" of the old person's life is only relevant when we have to make a life-or-death decision based on that value and it is entirely irrelevant to the inherent wrongness of cruel and inhumane treatment.

If I have to choose between saving my dear old mother's life and saving your sorry ass from drowning, I'd obviously choose to save my mother in a heartbeat. Not only is she my mother, she's also a kind and loving person who'll do more good for people in her remaining years of life than you would do if you had ten times as many years. In that scenario, your life may as well be worthless. However, if you were to come into my ER close to death, I'd try to save even you.

Similarly, if I had to choose between saving a rapist and saving a drowning baby, I'd choose to save the baby. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go out looking for rapists to kill. Why? Because I'm not fucked up.

Sorry but rapists are scum. The man who shook a baby to death? Fuck. Him. Back to my drowning example an infinite number of people like him drowning is worth less than one innocent child. The fact that you could come to a different conclusion is shocking.

Give it a rest you fucking hypocrite. Don't come here yapping about how much you care about babies and rape-victims. You actively support policies that contribute to the suffering and death of innocent babies and women. And, as for rape, you barely even believe rape exists and you spend a considerable amount of energy contributing to the culture that excuses rape and harrasses rape-victims. So don't pretend that you care in any meaningful way about innocent babies and women, that you value them infinitely highly, that you'd go to any lengths to save them.

If you place any value on anyone other than yourself, it is a finite and small value. This isn't about how much you care about innocent people. It's about how hard your dick gets at the thought of criminals getting killed. Which, frankly, is creepy and disgusting and a total failure on the part of whoever it was that tried to raise you to be a decent human being.

If 1/10 of criminals will rape or kill again, letting 10 of them back out into society means we let one innocent person suffer for the sake of 10 criminals. And my math says that the 10 criminals had their shot, they fucking blew it and 10 of their lives and happiness doesn't equate to the one person who gets brutalized by them. However we are now talking about multiple subjects. As I said before there are TWO great things about harsh sentencing.

1. Deterrence effect - leads to less crime as a whole. This is further strengthen by doing what I suggested in OP - show video of criminals emotionally collapsing after being found guilty and/or sentenced.

[...]

The purpose of linking the study was just in response to Khend who thinks deterrence rarely works because most crime isn't done by rational people. I disagree with that perspective because criminals make decisions that lower their likelihood of being caught and of being shot by a homeowner which demonstrates that they often do take into consideration the consequences of their actions.

Jesus Christ. I knew you hadn't read the paper but it seems you didn't read your own posts either.

The study doesn't support the bullshit in the OP in any meaningful sense. It's like you're saying, "2+2 = 8! As proof of this claim, please see this summary of a paper that shows the square root of 8 to be 3.1 which, like 2, is also an integer."

2. Can't do more crime because they are in prison. This is simple even without deterrence it is still in society's best interest to keep the person locked up.

Except that it's not at all clear-cut what is or is not in society's best interest to do. It may be in society's best interest to not have too many people locked up. It may be in society's interest to free up some of that money and those resources for other purposes. It may be in society's best interest to rehabilitate 9 out of 10 (like in your example) or even to rehabilitate 3 out of 10. It may be in society's best interest to rehabilitate a few people that can return to their families and do a better job of raising their kids rather than forcing those kids to grow up in single-parent households with no support from society. It may be in society's interest to do things that will reduce crime in the future, by guiding would-be criminals to more productive paths.

Just because your life is governed by fear and hatred doesn't mean that it's in society's best interest to do what you want. It may be in society's best interest to take risks. You're free to live a life free from personal risk if you like, but I suspect that life would be kinda shitty.

Now let me ask you this. A 20 year old assault and rapes someone. There is no shadow of a doubt, the assault was caught on camera, his semen was found on her, etc etc. How long should he remain in prison? And after you answer that, assume there is a 10% chance that if he is released he will rape again. Should he ever be released?

He should be in prison for however long may be appropriate as punishment. While in prison he should be made to go through a rehabilitation process. As time progresses, he should be prepared to re-enter society. If there is any great concern that he hasn't been rehabilitated, he should stay locked up until that changes. When released, measures should be taken to reduce the likelihood of recidivism.

Now, let me ask you this. A black guy claims he was raped by a 20-y-o man. There is no doubt they had sex (semen was found on him etc). There's an 80% chance it was rape. If there's no conviction, there's a 100% chance of him raping some other black guy in the next 5 years. The alleged rapist is white. Do you lock him up even though there's a 20% chance he didn't rape anyone? What if there was a 30% chance he was innocent? Do you let him go even though there's an 80% chance he did it and is certain to do it again? Do you lock him up in order to deter all the other (as yet undiscovered) rapists watching the trial? Or do you, I dunno, badmouth the alleged victim publicly and explain that it was just some gay black dude with buyer's remorse trying to make a buck off of some poor innocent white kid?

I figure if you really want to deter rapists, the best way to do it is to make sure more rapists get caught and convicted. If deterring rape is what you really want. I'm pretty sure it's not what you want.

[Lewkowski]

Why should I? If you had followed the series of comics he linked to or, I dunno, read his posts, you'd have realised by now that Khen doesn't deny the existence of deterrence. He simply believes that it doesn't work they way you believe it works.



If you really subscribed to this way of thinking even you would believe in anthropogenic climate change and support any measures necessary to curb it. You'd also support a far more expansive and generous welfare state.



What you are is missing the point, as usual. If faced with direct and mutually exclusive choices, sure, child comes before old person. But does that mean that we should spit on and torture old people? No. If we can save both, do we still save only the child? No. The "value" of the old person's life is only relevant when we have to make a life-or-death decision based on that value and it is entirely irrelevant to the inherent wrongness of cruel and inhumane treatment.

If I have to choose between saving my dear old mother's life and saving your sorry ass from drowning, I'd obviously choose to save my mother in a heartbeat. Not only is she my mother, she's also a kind and loving person who'll do more good for people in her remaining years of life than you would do if you had ten times as many years. In that scenario, your life may as well be worthless. However, if you were to come into my ER close to death, I'd try to save even you.

Similarly, if I had to choose between saving a rapist and saving a drowning baby, I'd choose to save the baby. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go out looking for rapists to kill. Why? Because I'm not fucked up.



Give it a rest you fucking hypocrite. Don't come here yapping about how much you care about babies and rape-victims. You actively support policies that contribute to the suffering and death of innocent babies and women. And, as for rape, you barely even believe rape exists and you spend a considerable amount of energy contributing to the culture that excuses rape and harrasses rape-victims. So don't pretend that you care in any meaningful way about innocent babies and women, that you value them infinitely highly, that you'd go to any lengths to save them.

If you place any value on anyone other than yourself, it is a finite and small value. This isn't about how much you care about innocent people. It's about how hard your dick gets at the thought of criminals getting killed. Which, frankly, is creepy and disgusting and a total failure on the part of whoever it was that tried to raise you to be a decent human being.



Jesus Christ. I knew you hadn't read the paper but it seems you didn't read your own posts either.

The study doesn't support the bullshit in the OP in any meaningful sense. It's like you're saying, "2+2 = 8! As proof of this claim, please see this summary of a paper that shows the square root of 8 to be 3.1 which, like 2, is also an integer."



Except that it's not at all clear-cut what is or is not in society's best interest to do. It may be in society's best interest to not have too many people locked up. It may be in society's interest to free up some of that money and those resources for other purposes. It may be in society's best interest to rehabilitate 9 out of 10 (like in your example) or even to rehabilitate 3 out of 10. It may be in society's best interest to rehabilitate a few people that can return to their families and do a better job of raising their kids rather than forcing those kids to grow up in single-parent households with no support from society. It may be in society's interest to do things that will reduce crime in the future, by guiding would-be criminals to more productive paths.

Just because your life is governed by fear and hatred doesn't mean that it's in society's best interest to do what you want. It may be in society's best interest to take risks. You're free to live a life free from personal risk if you like, but I suspect that life would be kinda shitty.



He should be in prison for however long may be appropriate as punishment. While in prison he should be made to go through a rehabilitation process. As time progresses, he should be prepared to re-enter society. If there is any great concern that he hasn't been rehabilitated, he should stay locked up until that changes. When released, measures should be taken to reduce the likelihood of recidivism.

Now, let me ask you this. A black guy claims he was raped by a 20-y-o man. There is no doubt they had sex (semen was found on him etc). There's an 80% chance it was rape. If there's no conviction, there's a 100% chance of him raping some other black guy in the next 5 years. The alleged rapist is white. Do you lock him up even though there's a 20% chance he didn't rape anyone? What if there was a 30% chance he was innocent? Do you let him go even though there's an 80% chance he did it and is certain to do it again? Do you lock him up in order to deter all the other (as yet undiscovered) rapists watching the trial? Or do you, I dunno, badmouth the alleged victim publicly and explain that it was just some gay black dude with buyer's remorse trying to make a buck off of some poor innocent white kid?

I figure if you really want to deter rapists, the best way to do it is to make sure more rapists get caught and convicted. If deterring rape is what you really want. I'm pretty sure it's not what you want.

I feel like we are talking past at each other. Climate change is completely off topic and you may have had a relevant point if the sole reason for locking people up was to 'be on the safe side.' That is A reason and like many things society should weight costs and benefits. The life and happiness of a a criminal is something I'm OK with sacrificing if it saves innocent people from being killed and raped. You are clearly OK with more people being killed and raped because you value the lives of criminals to a greater degree than I do.

Now what part of my statement do you specifically disagree with? Do you think criminals aren't going to continue their reign of terror upon release? If that's your argument speak it clearly so I can rebut it with evidence. If its something else let me know.

The drowning scenario's entire point was to get you to agree that not all life is equal. I've clearly placed a limited value on the life of proven criminals. You hold that to a greater level - the next step is to define how many criminals lives should be balanced against the lives of the law abiding folks. This isn't a game of gotcha this is a discussion on what society should do with criminals. I've laid out my case that criminals sentenced harshly make society a better place because people do not have to worry about being horrifically raped and murdered. This occurs by the simple fact they can't reach their victims in prison AND the deterrence effect.

Lets talk about rehabilitation. At what point would you declare a policy a failure? If 10% of the criminals do more crimes after prison? 5%? 20%? 33%? Without looking it up let me know what you think is the failure rate where we say... "Hey maybe we just need to get them locked up so innocent people don't have to suffer?"

[Loki]

Lewk, how's Assad's extra tough response working for him?

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, how's Assad's extra tough response working for him?

Because that is clearly an apples to apples comparison.

[Aimless]

Because that is clearly an apples to apples comparison.

I bet you could get a really safe society if you went totalitarian

[Loki]

Because that is clearly an apples to apples comparison.

It is. Your logic is that the more extreme the punishment, the better the result. You're ignoring the societal impact of punishments that are considered overly harsh or those that disproportionately affect one group.

[Khendraja'aro]

You're ignoring the societal impact of punishments that are considered overly harsh or those that disproportionately affect one group.

Even on the individual level, over-punishment doesn't really achieve anything.

[Loki]

Even on the individual level, over-punishment doesn't really achieve anything.

Depends on type of crime.

[Aimless]

Btw Lewk, were you expecting to be rewarded for trolling?

[Loki]

Incidentally, let's say only 20% are rational. If half of those can be deterred, you stop 10% of crimes.

[Aimless]

Voice it

VOICE IT

VOICE IT

[Lewkowski]

I'm curious how people view the anti-smoking campaign's effectiveness. It blasts TV/radio with the dangers of smoking with the hopes of creating fear in the would be smoking population. Smoking rates have declined - it seems that fear of consequences can be an effective deterrent to behavior. Why is it that you don't see that possibility for crime?