American society

Damocles said:
Law has a bearing on customs as well as on conscience. Usually the one is made or changed because of the customs and conscience.
Click to expand...
Indeed so. And, as WM has pointed out, when law goes too far astray from what custom and consensus prescribe, you end up with dramatically increased social stress.

Many people scoff at the idea but it's really true: the overwhelming number of people in any society obey social norms not from fear of formal retribution but because they know internally that these norms are "right" in some absolute sense. We're programmed that way by evolution . . . and it's not difficult to see the selective pressures that ensured we would be.

Law is necessary, certainly, and the larger and more dense the society, the more law becomes necessary. Human beings also require room for divergent behavior and counter-cultural groups. The two forces have to be allowed to balance themselves.

The upshot of this is somewhat counter-intuitive for many. Increasing the penalties for breaking social norms does not generally increase the deterrence value of law. It can to a very limited extent but you end up reaching a point of diminishing returns very quickly.

This isn't just theoretical speculation. It's been demonstrated many times.
 
Yes, which is why I think that our modern sentencing reforms are becoming increasingly retributional. Incapacitation, as I pointed out, is also gaining ground. A society that find retribution and incapacitation to be increasingly acceptable is becoming increasingly brutal. I think the brutality that is a general part of our society is the reason for our high crime rates.

Is it more efficient to put the money into enforcemnt? We're not tough on crime, we're just stupid. Let's get smart on crime.
 
If we're going to lock people up for 6 years for bringing cameras into theatres, honestly, why not just lock them up for life without parole? Increasing the sentence from a few months to 6 years really hasn't done much good. If recividism is what you're seeking to decrease by incapacitation increasing the penalty only DELAYS the recividism, it doesn't prevent it.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
The upshot of this is somewhat counter-intuitive for many. Increasing the penalties for breaking social norms does not generally increase the deterrence value of law. It can to a very limited extent but you end up reaching a point of diminishing returns very quickly.

This isn't just theoretical speculation. It's been demonstrated many times.
Click to expand...

lol.

No. The upshot is a made up assertion that punishment DOESN'T deter crime. It most obviously does, dingus batus.

Demonstrated many times? Got a link?
 
But by far the greatest deterrent against crime in society is the fact that most of us just go along with societal norms.

75% of criminals have anti-social disorder, as compared to 1% of regular people.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, which is why I think that our modern sentencing reforms are becoming increasingly retributional. Incapacitation, as I pointed out, is also gaining ground. A society that find retribution and incapacitation to be increasingly acceptable is becoming increasingly brutal. I think the brutality that is a general part of our society is the reason for our high crime rates.

Is it more efficient to put the money into enforcemnt? We're not tough on crime, we're just stupid. Let's get smart on crime.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We also, however, need to lighten up on some of our laws.

You know what's the worst thing to ever happen to law enforcement in the United States? The dumbass "War on Drugs" has made policing our major cities a nightmare proposition. Because the populace, especially in poor areas, "know" on some visceral level that the whole thing is stupid and wrong, they feel brutalized by enforcement. This in turn has made the police into The Enemy in large areas of every city.

As both my cop stepsons will tell you, you can't police anything effectively without the support of the community. Forget it, it can't be done.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Agreed. We also, however, need to lighten up on some of our laws.

You know what's the worst thing to ever happen to law enforcement in the United States? The dumbass "War on Drugs" has made policing our major cities a nightmare proposition. Because the populace, especially in poor areas, "know" on some visceral level that the whole thing is stupid and wrong, they feel brutalized by enforcement. This in turn has made the police into The Enemy in large areas of every city.

As both my cop stepsons will tell you, you can't police anything effectively without the support of the community. Forget it, it can't be done.
Click to expand...

The drug war is by far the biggest thing that I disagree with about the recent surge in sentencing. I can deal with violent criminals being given large sentences, but there's just clearly something not right about the drug war. Criminals say "There's nothing wrong doing what you want with your own body", and on some level, they are right, and there's just little you can do about it. We have to educate the populace. Drugs are not evil, they are just a public health problem.
 
I never said that either WM.

It does deter crime to a degree. But will never deter all crime.
the best route is for us to live and let live and quit trying to run everyone elses lives and just concentrate on running our own.
 
Watermark said:
The English justice system used to proscribe death for just about everything. But they actually had an office dedicated to commuting those death sentences to transportation. This was how your home nation was populated. :)
Click to expand...

Well, most of it. Australia became a dumping ground for British convicts because you cranky colonials insisted on self-government and told the Brits to dump their garbage elsewhere :D Anyway, my state was the only one (as a province) that was settled by free settlers and had no convict origins. Yes, it makes us feel superior to the rest of the mob here :clink:

Watermark: said:
Deterrence, of course, is not only judged by the length of the sentence. It's also judged by how well the law is enforced. Of course, you could have harsh sentencees and good enforcement, but why be so brutal? I dunno. I just don't like the American system. It's smoke and mirrors. If we had better enforcement we wouldn't have to have incapacitory three strikes laws and such.
Click to expand...

Well from an outsider's point of view the US criminal justice system seems quite brutal. It also seems intricate and complex and in parts - by no means all - quite corrupt. But you do seem a bloodthirsty lot, lots of revenge in your system.
 
Watermark said:
Punishment shouldn't be levied out merely as retribution. If a punishment has no reform purpose, the only other reason it should be levied out is to deter. Try to do both at the same time.

Incapacitation has recently gained a lot of foothold in the United States. It's by far the most brutal method, but it does serve it's purpose, if the individual in question can be expected to recividate at such a high rate that it's trivial to even think about it. In the US, however, it's rather surprising incapacitations widespread support. It's costing us billions, and it's one of the main reasons for our explose near 100% growth in prisoners every decade. Maybe we should put that into enforcement, to increase the deterrence factor?
Click to expand...

Interesting ideas. I do think that retribution is a valid part of punishment. It's difficult to work out sometimes but there has to be a balance between retribution and punishment that still allows rehabilitation. A fine balance indeed. Incapacitation is a last resort (or it should be) but I have no problem with it being used, there are some crims who just have to be locked up again and again, who can't be rehabilitated and who must be imprisoned just for the wellbeing of society.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Agreed. We also, however, need to lighten up on some of our laws.

You know what's the worst thing to ever happen to law enforcement in the United States? The dumbass "War on Drugs" has made policing our major cities a nightmare proposition. Because the populace, especially in poor areas, "know" on some visceral level that the whole thing is stupid and wrong, they feel brutalized by enforcement. This in turn has made the police into The Enemy in large areas of every city.

As both my cop stepsons will tell you, you can't police anything effectively without the support of the community. Forget it, it can't be done.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. And the idea goes back many years. I remember watching Tony Bouza (Borough Commander in NYPD, later Chief of Minneapolis) on a documentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Police_Tapes) describing the police as, "an army of occupation", and he wasn't approving of it. That comment stayed with me for years.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're not zen, you're a dumbass.

Punishment deters crime. Period. Im not saying there aren't overly punitive laws or wrongheaded enforcement agendas out there.
Click to expand...

Deterrence has two flavours - specific and general. Specific deterrence depends on apprehension of the individual, it's not possible to be punished until you get caught. When you get caught and you're sentenced (at least in my jurisdiction) the judge will let you know in his or her sentencing remarks, exactly how much of it you're getting because you got caught. The general part relates to the rest of us. We see someone go down and think, "uh-oh....". But it still depends on apprehension. If law enforcement is inefficient and ineffective and the chances of apprehension are minimal then the idea of punishment is highly abstract. If law enforcement is efficient and effective and the likelihood of getting caught is high then punishment becomes a reality and is a more effective deterrent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top