Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Penal Enlargement
#1
So recently NZF blocked Labor from abolishing the 3 strikes law. If you commit three serious crimes (rape, assault, murder etc) you get locked up forever with no chance of parole (I might be paraphrasing). Seems reasonable right?

The USA have a similar law, but for drug use. It is one of the reasons they have their impressive statistic of the largest portion of their population incarcerated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...ation_rate

This brings up the question of what is the purpose of the penal system? Punishment or rehabilitation?

What if someone is beyond rehabilitation? If they have no intrinsic value to society, do they still have the right to be part of it?


On-jail-crazy-rabbit-emoticon
Reply
#2
1) it's not forever it's for the maximum penalty on the third strike.
2) I hear the main effect of this law isn't in the punishment but the prevention?
3) if murderers can be rehabilitated then everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. giving everyone the hope that they can be rehabilitated is a strong positive effect in itself. Considering the 'value' of a person by their track record is a mentality that leads to no-one being rehabilitated.
4) people in prison are arguably not part of society in the first place.
Reply
#3
I wish I had a penis, but alas I am just a small group of bubbles.
Reply
#4
(03-07-2018, 09:37 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: So recently NZF blocked Labor from abolishing the 3 strikes law.
Three strikes was put in place because people were unsatisfied with soft punishments for highly recidivist criminals. If three strikes just keeps recidivist criminals out of society for longer, then maybe our problem is that whatever the first and second strike punishments are, they are ineffective forms of punishment to reduce reoffending.

So, let's talk alternatives to the actual punishments, not the meta
[Image: afg7SB6.png]
Reply
#5
Quote:giving everyone the hope that they can be rehabilitated is a strong positive effect in itself

This is a good point.


I think it is very easy to feel like the criminal justice system should be for rehabilitation. From my perspective it is the smart and logical way of looking at it. But I get the feeling that when someone is a victim, or someone they love is a victim, they want justice (read punishment). Which is an emotional thought, not a logical one. Having never been a victim, or known a victim of a serious crime it is really easy to see how misguided the idea of punishment is. But that doesn't seem to have changed they way the legal system has been historically run.

I believe there has been a number of psychology studies (as we all know, they produce the most rigorous and repeatable results of all the sciences) which show positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement. People are more likely to do things they think they will be rewarded. And if there are only negative consequences people think there is a chance they will get away with it, so it is worth the risk.


Is there a non-terrible way of incentivising desired behaviour instead of (or as well as) disincentivizing undesirable behaviour?
I feel like one of the biggest problems with the criminal system is the strong stigma associated with it. If you have gone through it, it is on your record. Potential employers see it and are less likely to hire you. It is difficult to get out of the hole you are in, so you end up repeat offending.
Is there a way we can remove that stigma?
Reply
#6
(04-07-2018, 07:15 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: I believe there has been a number of psychology studies (as we all know, they produce the most rigorous and repeatable results of all the sciences) which show positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement. People are more likely to do things they think they will be rewarded. And if there are only negative consequences people think there is a chance they will get away with it, so it is worth the risk.

Gotta be a line at some point though. Do you deserve rehabilitation for murder or rape? I think it should probably be more case by case. But that gets messy right, it will become emotional as well as logical. It's important to be sympathetic, but I imagine on a case by case basis it would be hard to get to a ruling for something like murder.

Doesn't Sweden or Finland or whatever country Lars comes from have a good rehabilitation system?


(04-07-2018, 07:15 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: Is there a way we can remove that stigma?

Difficult again right? If you are a child rapist, that should probably follow you around till you die. That was a terrible decision you made. There are some things I don't think you can come back from. Raping kids is one of them.

To quote Joe Rogan from one of his standup specials "No ones like: I used to know a dude who fucked kids once, but hes cool now".

But yeah for lesser crimes (I.e. not murder and rape I guess?) there should be some sort of "get it off your record in time" system.
Thoughts?
Liams Wrote:make a car out of scrap metal from genie lamps
Reply
#7
Thoughts on David Bain? Assuming that he did kill his family (as I believe), it doesn't overly concern me that he is on the loose, and it seems reasonable that he be able to hide his identity from the public. As it stands, he seems as likely to murder again as anyone who has never murdered is likely to murder.

I think we really only ought to keep people in prison for as long as we think they present a sincere risk to society. However if there are people we cannot rehabilitate, which will always be a risk to society, then it seems best we imprison them forever...

Japan recently executed 7 leaders of Aum Shinrikyo, a yoga science utopian group that performed sarin chemical attacks. Thoughts of capital punishment? The heads of dangerous religious and/or political groups should surely be never paroled for their crimes, but should we execute them? Should Saddam Hussein have been hanged? Osama Bin Laden shot if avoidable?
[Image: afg7SB6.png]
Reply
#8
(08-07-2018, 07:42 PM)crispier taco Wrote: Thoughts on David Bain? Assuming that he did kill his family (as I believe), it doesn't overly concern me that he is on the loose, and it seems reasonable that he be able to hide his identity from the public. As it stands, he seems as likely to murder again as anyone who has never murdered is likely to murder.

Well if it's anything like OJ then he killed who he needed to kill, mostly got away with it, and now probably wants to chill and live life.


(08-07-2018, 07:42 PM)crispier taco Wrote: Japan recently executed 7 leaders of Aum Shinrikyo, a yoga science utopian group that performed sarin chemical attacks.

Jesus Christ what a roller coaster that was. All about Yoga and Science but also burning peoples faces off?? Yeah I think the Government did the right thing there.


(08-07-2018, 07:42 PM)crispier taco Wrote: Thoughts of capital punishment? The heads of dangerous religious and/or political groups should surely be never paroled for their crimes, but should we execute them? Should Saddam Hussein have been hanged? Osama Bin Laden shot if avoidable?

Not a big fan of the death penalty. But I think it can be case by case. In the examples above, after trial then death is ok by me.
Liams Wrote:make a car out of scrap metal from genie lamps
Reply
#9
(08-07-2018, 07:59 PM)AdminGG Wrote: Well if it's anything like OJ then he killed who he needed to kill, mostly got away with it, and now probably wants to chill and live life.

That's a pretty ridiculous standpoint btw. "Oh killings ok if its like, you know, you gotta do it".
(08-07-2018, 07:42 PM)crispier taco Wrote: Thoughts on David Bain? Assuming that he did kill his family (as I believe), it doesn't overly concern me that he is on the loose, and it seems reasonable that he be able to hide his identity from the public. As it stands, he seems as likely to murder again as anyone who has never murdered is likely to murder.

Why do you think he's incapable of killing now? You think he's a mass murderer, but you want to just hide him from society and live peacefully? The guy's a nutcase. I don't think it's as simple as "he had his revenge, now he's normal". You believe he killed 5 people, 3 of them teenagers right? I think he's pretty high on the risk of re-offending scale tbh. Can he just live a normal family life now?
Reply
#10
(08-07-2018, 07:42 PM)crispier taco Wrote: As it stands, [David Bain] seems as likely to murder again as anyone who has never murdered is likely to murder.

(08-07-2018, 07:59 PM)AdminGG Wrote: Well if it's anything like OJ then he killed who he needed to kill, mostly got away with it, and now probably wants to chill and live life.

If you look at it from a purely probabilistic standpoint, I would assume the chance of recommitting an offense is much higher than a random person committing their first crime. (I don't have a source for this, but it is typically how these sorts of statistics work). Crimes are typically not fully independent events, if one event happens it is more likely that subsequent events occur. Examples of this are robbery and terrorist attacks. I am not sure how well this relates to an individual committing a crime, however it would seem reasonable to me that a person willing to commit a crime once is more likely to commit a crime again than the average person, who is typically opposed to commiting crimes (whether that be for morals or fear of reprisal).

If your interested here is a paper and a video explaining the robbery and IRA attack probabilities: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...e2ec9280c/
https://youtu.be/lCjspXB5F4A

That being said, I also believe that people make mistakes and they should not be punished forever because of them. A person who has made a mistake might in fact be less likely to make that same mistake again, given they now know the consequences of it. But in the case of David Bane and OJ Simpson, they didn't make mistakes, they made choices.

(09-07-2018, 06:34 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: But in the case of David Bane and OJ Simpson, they didn't make mistakes, they made choices.

Although, having said that... Free will is an illusion, and what is a "choice" if not a mistake of nature.

But for this kind of discussion, it is somewhat necessary to assume that people have agency.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)