Francis is right; some of those "criminals" who were sent to Australia were charged with what we consider today to be "minor" crimes.
I also learned some new things about London when I read "The Map That Changed to World" about William Smith, the geologist. He was put into "debtors prison" for owing money. Can anybody imagine that happening today? I think I read someplace that the majority of Americans are in debt.
baddog1 wrote:echi wrote:baddog1 wrote:What do you think about the "island" scenario? Place only the most heinous criminals together on an off-limits, otherwise uninhabited, undeveloped island and let them fend for themselves...
Might be interesting... :wink:
Yes, it would make for excellent TV, but I could not support such a thing. Society must be held responsible for its criminals.
Why should society be held responsible for these people?
Well, looking back, I probably shouldn't have given that answer; I don't think it really fits with your question. Still, I want to try to explain what I meant. . .
I understand that individuals must be held accountable for the crimes they commit, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise.
But, the problem of crime cannot be adequately dealt with on the personal, individual level. If we really want to see a decrease in crime then we have to look at the bigger picture and try to identify and address the broader (and maybe less obvious) reasons for this structural dissonance.
I guess it's possible that if we refuse to accept this responsibility we might, someday, end up sending
everybody to live on an island!
(Antarctica??)
A life of crime is a choice and no one is ultimately responsible except the individual. You can site all the statistics you want but for every disadvantaged person who chose a life of crime, there are several others who didn't.
You said:
"If we really want to see a decrease in crime then we have to look at the bigger picture and try to identify and address the broader (and maybe less obvious) reasons for this structural dissonance."
Even if you identify the 'reasons', you have to have consensus on the methods to 'address' them.
This is never going to happen. There are too many differing opinions and a real lack of interest from the powers that be.
The best anyone can do (for those that don't work or volunteer in the system) is to ensure one is not contributing to the problem.
Mame, Actually it's been happening in the US. We have been building more prisons and incarcerating more criminals over the past decade or so. I'm not sure there's a direct relationship, but major crimes in the US has been dropping. Even so, we're still one of the major crime riddled countries in the world.
Mame wrote:A life of crime is a choice and no one is ultimately responsible except the individual. You can site all the statistics you want but for every disadvantaged person who chose a life of crime, there are several others who didn't.
You said:
"If we really want to see a decrease in crime then we have to look at the bigger picture and try to identify and address the broader (and maybe less obvious) reasons for this structural dissonance."
I also said,
"I understand that individuals must be held accountable for the crimes they commit, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise."
and,
"Forget about "rehabilitation". These people can't get along with other people, so they shouldn't get to live with other people."
Mame wrote:Even if you identify the 'reasons', you have to have consensus on the methods to 'address' them.
"Reasons"?
Do you think there might be "reasons"?
If criminals had been executed instead of being sent to Australia, it's quite likely I would not exist. An even greater punishment than death, is doing so before they have the chance to pass on the "torch" of humanity.
(Even greater punishment is punishing or killing the children as well, but surely only the biblical god is capable of cruelty on that level.)
EorI, And it's my understanding that god had punished generations for the sins of their "father." No wonder christians are scared shetless.
echi wrote:
I understand that individuals must be held accountable for the crimes they commit, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise.
But, the problem of crime cannot be adequately dealt with on the personal, individual level. If we really want to see a decrease in crime then we have to look at the bigger picture and try to identify and address the broader (and maybe less obvious) reasons for this structural dissonance.
I guess it's possible that if we refuse to accept this responsibility we might, someday, end up sending everybody to live on an island! (Antarctica??)
And then you said: "
Do you think there might be "reasons"?"
I was quoting YOU, echi. I don't think it matters what the 'reasons' are if the powers that be can't be bothered to help them. Building more prisons is a bandaid.
What I am saying is that society is NOT responsible for criminal behaviour. Individuals are. And it doesn't seem like governments really care about prevention. You can stop this behaviour by addressing today's children. But you have to want to and you have to put in the resources. If you aren't willing to do that, don't bother analysing WHY because it's irrelevant. All you're going to do is react... ie. prisons.
Mame, I believe you have an excellent point about prevention. Our doctors and hospitals used to only care sick people. The empahsis now is prevention - that reduces sickness and hosptial care that reduced costs for everybody.
Cicerone - what are you saying when you say:
"Actually it's been happening in the US. We have been building more prisons and incarcerating more criminals over the past decade or so. I'm not sure there's a direct relationship, but major crimes in the US has been dropping. Even so, we're still one of the major crime riddled countries in the world."
You're building more prisons. You're incarcertaing more people. Major Crimes have been dropping.
It doesn't compute, CI.
With respect to prevention, I say that because I witnessed a real turnaround in a school on the east side regarding hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition. They went into the k-3 grades and educated them. They also instituted a policy in the school where junk food was not allowed. The kids were from very destitute, crime-ridden families. The parents began supplying sandwiches instead of chips (crisps), milk instead of pop, and the kids came washed. I met up with some of those kids about 10 years later and what a difference that program made.
I think we could do the same thing about crime; we already do it about drugs (here, at least) and sex. Vancouver is not a drug-sex haven among the young, despite being the "Bud Capital of the World".
Of course, I don't think that's the only thing we'd need to do. It would take a multi-pronged effort.
Mame wrote:echi wrote:
I understand that individuals must be held accountable for the crimes they commit, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise.
But, the problem of crime cannot be adequately dealt with on the personal, individual level. If we really want to see a decrease in crime then we have to look at the bigger picture and try to identify and address the broader (and maybe less obvious) reasons for this structural dissonance.
I guess it's possible that if we refuse to accept this responsibility we might, someday, end up sending everybody to live on an island! (Antarctica??)
And then you said: "
Do you think there might be "reasons"?"
I was quoting YOU, echi. I don't think it matters what the 'reasons' are if the powers that be can't be bothered to help them. Building more prisons is a bandaid.
And I never said we shouldn't use bandaids!
I knew you were quoting me. I just couldn't figure out
why.
Quote:What I am saying is that society is NOT responsible for criminal behaviour. Individuals are.
On an individual level, yes, individuals are 100% responsible. Does that mean there can be no contributing social factors?
Quote:And it doesn't seem like governments really care about prevention. You can stop this behaviour by addressing today's children. But you have to want to and you have to put in the resources. If you aren't willing to do that, don't bother analysing WHY because it's irrelevant. All you're going to do is react... ie. prisons.
Yeah. You're right.
09/09/2002 - Updated 12:53 AM ET
Violent crime rate in America continues steep declineSince 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%.
Population Growth in U. S. Prisons, 1980-1996 Alfred Blumstein, Allen J. Beck
Crime and Justice, Vol. 26, Prisons (1999), pp. 17-61
View Article Abstract
Prison Statistics
Summary findings | BJS publications | Selected statistics |
Also by BJS staff | Related sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary findings
On June 30, 2005 --
-- 2,186,230 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails -- an increase of 2.6% from midyear 2004, less than the average annual growth of 3.4% since yearend 1995.
-- there were an estimated 488 prison inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents -- up from 411 at yearend 1995. -- the number of women under the jurisdiction of State or Federal prison authorities increased 3.4% from midyear 2004, reaching 106,174 and the number of men rose 1.3%, totaling 1,406,649.
At yearend 2004 there were 3,218 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,220 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 463 white male inmates per 100,000 white males.
In 2002 there were an estimated 624,900 State prisoners serving time for a violent offense. State prisons also held an estimated 253,000 property offenders and 265,000 drug offenders.
Click on the chart to view full sized version.
What I'm not understanding, CI, is that if the crime rates are down, why are they building and filling more prisons? Are people being jailed for more and more minor crimes?
Crime rates are down based on several reasons. One is simply that the US started from a very high crime rate compared to other industrialized countries. They're dropping, but we're still "up there" on the totem pole. Another reason is when we have a better economy, and the poor can participate in, their need for criminal behavior drops. Another reason is that more criminals are being incarcerated, making repeat crimes by the same criminal less common.
In summary, it's the economy, the environment in which one lives, and the higher incidence of criminals being charged and incarcerated.
echi wrote:My moral code does not allow me to take a life. It requires me to defend my life (and to help defend the lives of others), and if an attacker were to die in the process it would be the consequence of his own aggression.
Ticomaya wrote:Hold on ... you just said your moral code does not "allow" you to "take a life," yet somehow self-defense is permitted -- nay, mandated -- and if you happen to kill the guy, that isn't because you "took a life," it's just a consequence of the attacker's own aggression [. . .]
There is a clear difference between an act of self-defense and an act of aggression. That distinction is very clear, in my mind, but probably not critical to this discussion. So...
This was your last post before I got us off track:
Ticomaya wrote:You recognize the justification of taking a human life under certain, limited circumstances. The stated circumstance being defense of self. Thus, it appears your moral code dictates to you that a life can be taken in order to preserve your own (presumably you would apply this rule to preservation of others).
Yes. That is correct.
What's your point?
echi wrote:echi wrote:My moral code does not allow me to take a life. It requires me to defend my life (and to help defend the lives of others), and if an attacker were to die in the process it would be the consequence of his own aggression.
Ticomaya wrote:Hold on ... you just said your moral code does not "allow" you to "take a life," yet somehow self-defense is permitted -- nay, mandated -- and if you happen to kill the guy, that isn't because you "took a life," it's just a consequence of the attacker's own aggression [. . .]
There is a clear difference between an act of self-defense and an act of aggression. That distinction is very clear, in my mind, but probably not critical to this discussion. So...
I agree ... not critical to this discussion ... since CP is not an act of aggression.
Quote:This was your last post before I got us off track:
Ticomaya wrote:You recognize the justification of taking a human life under certain, limited circumstances. The stated circumstance being defense of self. Thus, it appears your moral code dictates to you that a life can be taken in order to preserve your own (presumably you would apply this rule to preservation of others).
Yes. That is correct.
What's your point?
My point was to ask the question:
Tico wrote:Why do you suppose your moral code ceases to allow you to recognize the authority of the government to execute capital murderers? Why do you think it's moral to allow a ruthless, cold-blooded killer of defenseless innocents the right to live when he denied that right to his victims?
Why not? YOU ARE.
