Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Do you know the 100%, absolutely certain method to get rid of all crime?
Abolish all laws.
Abolish all laws.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Generally, I lean way left on politics.
You can call me a progressive or a liberal --- except on criminal justice. On this issue, the conservatives are right: our laws are too soft on crime.
Do you agree with these goals?
-- The goal of all decision-making systems should be to make the correct decision as consistently as humanly possible.
Yes.-- The primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm.
If those goals seem right to you, then it might surprise you to learn that the USA's criminal justice system isn't designed to accomplish either goal. Its goal is based on the Blackstone Ratio.
In criminal law, Blackstone's ratio (also known as the Blackstone's formulation) is the idea that: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. While the idea of convicting the innocent is revolting, avoiding it should not be the primary goal.
The result of the Blackstone goal is a body of laws that go overboard in favor of the accused.
On this issue, the conservatives are right: our laws are too soft on crime.
Do you know the 100%, absolutely certain method to get rid of all crime?
Abolish all laws.
It would be if we knew how to do it.That is *one* of the primary goals, but not the only one, by far. Rehabilitation, for example, is a worthy goal.
The goal of all decision-making systems ought to be to make the correct decision as often as humanly possible. Making the right decision will prevent wrongful incarcerations alsoBut you seem to not understand that your 'Blackstone ratio' is precisely aimed at the second problem. In particular, convicting and incarcerating an innocent person would be a serious harm of the exact sort that would violate this 'primary' goal.
Why doesn't the idea of the government allowing criminals to harm more innocent people bother you just as much?And it would be perpetrated by the government itself, making the whole thing even worse.
I wonder how many offenses and how many victims will be harmed before that happens. I wish we had that statistic. I'd bet that stat would change your mind.So, yes, I do think it is far worse to incarcerate a single innocent person than it would be to fail to convict several guilty ones. We always have another chance to get a repeat offender.
our laws are too soft on crime.
I don't think drug addicts should be made criminals as a rule.
When you base your data on Hollywood cliches , you might want to analyze more.Generally, I lean way left on politics. You can call me a progressive or a liberal --- except on criminal justice. On this issue, the conservatives are right: our laws are too soft on crime.
Do you agree with these goals?
-- The goal of all decision-making systems should be to make the correct decision as consistently as humanly possible.
-- The primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm.
If those goals seem right to you, then it might surprise you to learn that the USA's criminal justice system isn't designed to accomplish either goal. Its goal is based on the Blackstone Ratio.
In criminal law, Blackstone's ratio (also known as the Blackstone's formulation) is the idea that: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. While the idea of convicting the innocent is revolting, avoiding it should not be the primary goal.
The result of the Blackstone goal is a body of laws that go overboard in favor of the accused. At the same time, these laws make it difficult to convict the guilty thus undermining the goals of making the correct decisions as consistently as possible along with the goal of protecting innocent citizens from serious harm.
Our justice system isn't very good at rendering justice but it's been a boon for the movie industry. The arrogant killer skating free on a technicality, the tough cop who goes outside the law to render justice, the prosecutor who cheats to get convictions, the relative of the victim hellbent on vengeance, these characters are staples in Hollywood dramas as art imitates American life.
At the moment, the problem of racism's effect on our criminal justice system is on our mind -- and there's no doubt about it -- racism is a serious problem in criminal justice. But it's just one of the problems of a poorly designed system
The conservatives are right on this issue. Because of the Blackstone Blunder, our laws are too soft on crime.
Your thoughts?
It would be if we knew how to do it.
The goal of all decision-making systems ought to be to make the correct decision as often as humanly possible. Making the right decision will prevent wrongful incarcerations also
Why doesn't the idea of the government allowing criminals to harm more innocent people bother you just as much?
I wonder how many offenses and how many victims will be harmed before that happens. I wish we had that statistic. I'd bet that stat would change your mind.
We humans have yet to invent a government that wasn't inept, corrupt, or both. So, I share your distrust of government. But I don't think it wise that someone accused of a crime should have more rights than the people who witnessed his crimes, or more rights than his victims.Those of us on the right are instinctively distrustful of state power. So while I agree with you that the law as currently conceived is weak (and rapidly getting weaker) on crime, I don't really attribute most of the cause for that on the rights of the accused. I strongly support those rights.
I do, yes.Do you really feel that the main hindrance to getting the correct decision is making sure that we don't convict innocent people?
You are focused on injustice to the accused and unconcerned with the far greater harm done by a system that doesn't do very well in protecting the innocent.Because the government harm is one for which there is no defense. It is the system that is supposed to be protecting us. So to allow the government to commit such acts is fundamentally unjust.
We have no disagreement on these points whatsoever. Correcting these imbalances should be done also.And how many people are currently harms by an unfair and unjust system? How many people get away with white collar crimes that harm thousands? How many people are harmed when the system itself is corrupted by those making sure their cronies don't serve sentences?
I do, yes.
You are focused on injustice to the accused and unconcerned with the far greater harm done by a system that doesn't do very well in protecting the innocent.
We have no disagreement on these points whatsoever. Correcting these imbalances should be done also.
I think this is a bit misunderstanded, not that I think you are wrong in what you say. But the issue with how the criminal justice system works in my opinion is that it is somewhat backwards.Do you agree with these goals?
-- The primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm.
No, I think some actions shouldn't be crimes. But the laws on violent crimes are too soft on criminals.Then you apparently also think that many laws are too hard on "crime."
I'm not advocating more severe sentences. I do think that the sentencing process is flawed but that isn't a part of my argument in the OP.I do agree that criminal sentences should be more severe especially if they harm other people...
I agree. However, our psychologists don't know enough yet to help us prevent crime.But I think the most effective way to combat crimes would be to solve the issues, which makes people decide to commit them in the first place. The problem with that is obviously that it would require a lot of time, money and effort as it would need to be done on the whole society and how we do things, which is not as easy as simply throwing people in jail or give them a fine. But to me, that is the only way to really combat crimes, remove or solve the issues that make people want to do them in the first place.
and the overall effect....-- The goal of all decision-making systems should be to make the correct decision as consistently as humanly possible.
-- The primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm.
The fear of punishment might be a deterrent, but if it isn't, what are our options?and the overall effect....
correct the behavior of the convicted and return him to society
without the change of mind and heart
society is still in peril
even when a sentence is fulfilled
GOOD questionThe fear of punishment might be a deterrent, but if it isn't, what are our options?
The fear of punishment might be a deterrent, but if it isn't, what are our options?
Some of it is related to that... but a lot of it is simply linked to how our society works...I agree. However, our psychologists don't know enough yet to help us prevent crime.