3 Ways to Create an (Almost) Crime Free Polity

Actually there is one way to eliminate all crime, and that's to eliminate all laws. Doing so eliminates all crime by definition.

But that's really the only way that individual liberty will invariably reduce crime. Security usually comes in an exchange for personal freedoms and the nations with the least crime are nations where collectivism trumps individualism. They are nations where selling chewing gum is illegal and petty crimes might cause you to lose a body part.

I'm not saying that's the way it should be, I'd rather have the freedom than the security in those cases but the notion that increasing freedom will decrease crime ignores that nations with low rates for clearly defined crimes (you can't compare crime rates easily because the crimes themselves are defined differently, so I'm talking about clearly defined crimes like homicide) don't tend to be highly individualist nations, but rather authoritarian and collectivist cultures.

Actually, you could keep the prison/industrial complex by simply declaring a "War on Fraud" campaign the same day you eliminated the idiot drug laws. Every jail cell vacated by a druggie would be one more cell available for a demokkkrat...

1- I agree about repealing drug laws. I would go farther than that by saying that anyone should be able to buy a what is now a prescription drug w/o having to be given a prescription. If the pharmacists are afraid of being sued by people who take an incorrect medication, each drug should come with a list of uses, interactions.

Over the decades, the pharmacist has been reduced to being a pill dispenser. If people were able to buy their own medications without prescriptions, pharmacists could go back to being the professional advisor that he/she once was.

The customer should be required to sign a waiver that if they screw up by taking something that is not good for them, that the pharmacist would not be liable for any harm that comes to the patient.

I think that most people would run to the doctor anyway, but there needs to be a choice.

2- Agree, but there ARE certain classes of people who should not have guns, so there should be a method in place to disallow the mentally ill, the violent felon (who will get guns anyway) etc. to ability to buy guns.

3- Like the idea of banishment, but where would we put them?????

I do not deny the filosofy nor the historical authenticity
of what u said, but in essence, I recommend a restoration
of the status quo ante (as to selfdefense & drugs)
plus adding the BANISHMENT of violent recidivists concept.

Criminals have de facto self-defined
as seeing their fellow citizens AS PREY.

To the victims, particularly the FUTURE victims, this is INTOLERABLE
but the leaders of government seem willing to accept this misconduct
the same as bad weather (i.e., let it happen and forget it).





David

In my BANISHMENT concept,
I do not contemplate holding criminals prisoner
and remaining responsible for supporting them
with food, housing, and health services.

After identifying them by taking their retinal scans, fingerprints & DNA,
I 'd dump them off behind 1000s of miles of water
with the truthful admonition that the death penalty applies to
sneaking back into America without permission.

This is not to imply
that we shoud stop capital punishment for their murders.

Its just that like when a medical technician filters out
someone 's blood with kidney dialysis, HE DOES NOT PUT THE DIRT BACK IN.

Most respectfully, I must disagree (for the most part).
I woud not put a loaded revolver into the hands of an excited chimpanzee.
Similarly, I 'd not put that gun into the hands of a frenzied psychotic,
but what of someone who has lived his life harmlessly,
peacefully, but believes that he is the reincarnation of Napoleon ?
I can t find it in my heart to tell him:
" since u have strange beliefs, u must just take your chances
of getting mugged and killed on your way to the corner
to get a container of milk." I think that offends decency.

Qua "violent felons": how about a woman who has been released
from prison after she successfully defended herself from a brutally
abusive husband or boyfriend, resulting in homicide ?
Is it morally right or decent that SHE shoud have to roll the dice
on her personal safety coming home from work, or while sleeping
in her bed when burglars break in ? I don 't think it is.









America owns islands in the Aleutian Chain
that r closer to Japan than to America.
Please note that I do not necessarily recommend distant prisons,
but rather that we have distant dropping off places,
that after which incorrigibly violent recidivists have been dropped off,
thay are charged to do whatever thay choose to DO,
that thay will be responsible for their own well being,
but that the death penalty applies to sneaking back into America.





David

There is a simpler and easier way to eliminate crime, thats to eliminate criminals.

If a person is convicted of a crime, they go to prison.
They dont get time off for good behavior, they do EVERY DAY of their sentence.
If they get a 20 year sentence, then 20 years to the day after they went in, they get let out.
If someone gets sentenced to death, they get one appeal.
If they lose that appeal, then execute them that day.

If some punk decides to mug some little old lady, and if bystanders beat him to death, then thats just to bad.
His family cannot do anything about it, and nobody can be sued or prosecuted for it.

Allow a person to defend themselves, their family, their homes, their property, and their friends with any available means, including deadly force, when attacked, without fear of civil or criminal prosecution.

Add to the list of death penalty offenses so that it includes other crimes.
Crimes such as drunk driving (when someone is killed by a drunk).
ANY CRIME where someone is killed by the criminal, that criminal gets the death penalty, and that includes if someone dies by ANY cause during a crime.
For example, if you are robbing a liquor store, and the store owner dies of a heart attack during the crime, you get the death penalty because of it.

People need to realize that criminals dont care about your rights.
They have chosen to live outside the law, outside of civilized society, so IMHO they get no protection by the law.
They have no right to expect society to care about them, since they dont care about society.

OK,rant over (for now).

Anybody interested in this sort of topic should have a copy of Robert Hare's "Without Conscience" so as to grasp what you're dealing with. Hare notes that psychopaths are something like 20% of general prison populations and more like 50% of violent offenders.

Well, what about 'giving people the chance not become criminals'?

I mean, take all these business and economic criminals. Or those in politics, who take bribes ...

Actually, you proposals are really not bad.
I would add to your list. MM,the death penalty for all those who might become criminals.
Better, of course, to all those who get children. Crime would go to zero within a relatively short period.

Everybody has the chance to not become a criminal.
If someone chooses to become a criminal, then they must live with the consequences of that choice.



They should all be arrested, prosecuted, and if convicted,sent to prison for long trms.

The rest of your post is meaningless garbage.
You are smarter then that.

Well, if I hadn't studied law, worked as a a probation officer, as a social worker in prisons ... then I certainly would be smart enough to give a better response on this subject.

And if someone died - like by suicide, or by poverty, or ... - due to what they did?

Did you forget that Hitler tried your proposal before you thought of it?

BBB

WHICH proposal ? There are 3.

What did he do ?
What do u have in mind ?





David

Your post is not clear, Walter.
Sarcasm ?

I dunno.




David

And have you successfully eliminated crime where you live, because of your work?
Are there still criminals and crime?

Since its is apparent that your work didnt eliminate crime (some may say it increased crime) lets try something that will work.

Or, are you of the opinion that society forces criminals to be the animals they are?
Its not the criminals fault at all, is is?
Remember, if you leave your car unlocked, its your fault it gets stolen.

How far do you want to go with this?
If someone dies because they dont like what you write here, so they commit suicide, does that make you liable?
After all, suicide is a choice, nobody gets forced into it.

I will agree to decriminalization and free use of all drugs IF we also agree that employers are allowed to implement and enforce zero tolerance policies for any and all or some selective drugs in the work place and are allowed to administer routine or random drug tests to enforce the policy.

Further, any person on the public dole in any respect must submit to a drug test and be free of unprescribed controlled substances in order to receive public assistance.

Any person convicted of operating a moving vehicle or critical machinery or whatever while under the influence must thereafter submit to testing and be free of any controlled substance in order to receive a drivers license, operators license, or otherwise be certified to perform whatever function that could be hazardous to others.

In other words, our 'crime free polity' must not put us at the mercy of the irresponsible or incompetent.

In the society I live in, according to our Christian-Jewish tradition, to the moral standards society has and of cause to human rights and our constitution all humans are humans.

Since I studied history, I know that even ancient societies didn't think of criminals as animals - how cruel they may have been with their punishment.


Well, suicide is codiced in the ICD-10 (X60-X84) like heartattack (chapter IX).