USA's Laws Are Too Soft On Crime

[Tambourine]

Do you know the 100%, absolutely certain method to get rid of all crime?


Abolish all laws.

 

[Yazata]

Generally, I lean way left on politics.

And I learn very much towards right-populism.

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.

In many cases the laws are fine in my opinion, as are the common-law legal principles. It's just that they are selectively enforced, when they are enforced at all.

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, if "correct" means correctly deciding on guilt and innocence. If it means "politically correct", then I don't.

-- The primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm.

Yes.

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.

Blackstone was an 18th century Briton. His commentary on the common law is taught in law schools in most English speaking countries. So it isn't just the USA. And I'd guess that his commentaries were shaped in some large part by conditions in Britain in his time and by the kind of abuses that were prevalent there. So sure, abuses today might run in a different direction.

The result of the Blackstone goal is a body of laws that go overboard in favor of the accused.

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.

The biggest abuses in law enforcement these days seem to be the result of politically motivated decisions on selective enforcement. Police management decide on policies regarding who to arrest. DAs decide which arrestees to prosecute and which ones get their charges dropped. Judges decide on sentencing. Extra-judicial law-enforcement decisions often have little to do with the crimes actually committed, and have more to do with prevailing political narratives and pressures.

 

[ecco]

On this issue, the conservatives are right: our laws are too soft on crime.

Our system of punishment is too light on white-collar criminals compared to the rest.

Our system of punishment is much too light on politically connected criminals compared to the rest.

 

[ecco]

Do you know the 100%, absolutely certain method to get rid of all crime?


Abolish all laws.

I thought the answer was eliminate all humans.

 

[Polymath257]

The OP talked about the goals of a criminal justice system. It is interesting that *justice* is not mentioned as one of the goals, when it is the whole point of the system.

This means that the system as a whole has to be seen by the society as moving towards justice, not just condemnation of the guilty. So, for example, in the US there is a broad consensus that if you are rich or well-connected, you can get away with a more moderate penalty than someone who is poor (even to the point of no penalty at all). This is fundamentally unjust. There is also the consensus that if you are white, the system deals with you more leniently than if you have more melanin in your skin. This is also fundamentally unjust.

So, we have the combined problems of a very high incarceration rate (already putting the question of fairness into question), combined with the idea that the rich or well-connected are immune from penalties, combined with the fact that not being white leads to more severe penalties.

This shows the system as a whole to be missing its basic goal of justice. And *that* suggests that the laws are NOT too soft or too harsh, but that they are being unfairly applied. And that strikes right at the heart of what the system is supposed to be all about.

You see, the goal of 'protecting the innocent' assumes that there are people who *are* innocent. But I would suggest that there are very, very few Americans that are actually law-abiding. All you have to do is go on any street and see how many people are breaking the law by speeding. People routinely break the law and get away with it. And *that* means that anyone who the government wants to prosecute *can* be prosecuted for *something*. And that, again, goes to the issue of unfairness.

I suspect that if we locked up every person who speeds, there would be an uproar. Unless, of course, those people are in the groups that are 'disfavored'.

 

[joe1776]

That is *one* of the primary goals, but not the only one, by far. Rehabilitation, for example, is a worthy goal.

It would be if we knew how to do it.

But 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.

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

And it would be perpetrated by the government itself, making the whole thing even worse.

Why doesn't the idea of the government allowing criminals to harm more innocent people bother you just as much?

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.

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

our laws are too soft on crime.

Odd. I see America as a lawless nation nation now for those in power, and a nation that applies its laws cruelly and unevenly. Police are allowed to violate the law unscathed except when they get caught on camera. Trump pardons criminals simply because a criminal has been convicted and he can't have that.

The Republican Party is an entrenched crime family.

Sorry, but I see no reason to respect American law, nor any philosophical reason to obey it (social contract) - just the base desire to avoid the repercussions of being caught breaking it. I have no contract with America any longer. It violated the contract.

So soft on white collar crime and draconian on street crime.

I don't think drug addicts should be made criminals as a rule.

Then you apparently also think that many laws are too hard on "crime."

 

[Curious George]

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?

When you base your data on Hollywood cliches , you might want to analyze more.

 

[Polymath257]

It would be if we knew how to do it.

And we do, for many. The problem is that it is expensive and we don't want 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

Do you really feel that the main hindrance to getting the correct decision is making sure that we don't convict innocent people?

Why doesn't the idea of the government allowing criminals to harm more innocent people bother you just as much?

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.

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.

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?

 

[joe1776]

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.

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.

 

[joe1776]

Do you really feel that the main hindrance to getting the correct decision is making sure that we don't convict innocent people?

I do, yes.

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.

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.

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?

We have no disagreement on these points whatsoever. Correcting these imbalances should be done also.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And I see the main harm to innocents is that from the government.

We have no disagreement on these points whatsoever. Correcting these imbalances should be done also.

And, I would suggest, they should be done *first*, to establish confidence in the system.

 

[Nimos]

Do you agree with these goals?

-- The primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm.

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.

Because in most cases the only effective preventional effect it has is that of punishment. Meaning if one person want to kill another, nothing except the fear of being punish for it will really prevent it, and in a lot of cases it doesn't really work. Hench the fact that people are still killed, drive to fast, rob each other etc.

I do agree that criminal sentences should be more severe especially if they harm other people. 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.

 

[joe1776]

Then you apparently also think that many laws are too hard on "crime."

No, I think some actions shouldn't be crimes. But the laws on violent crimes are too soft on criminals.

 

[joe1776]

I do agree that criminal sentences should be more severe especially if they harm other people...

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.

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.

I agree. However, our psychologists don't know enough yet to help us prevent crime.

 

[Thief]

-- 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.

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

 

[joe1776]

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

The fear of punishment might be a deterrent, but if it isn't, what are our options?

 

[Thief]

The fear of punishment might be a deterrent, but if it isn't, what are our options?

GOOD question

many judges fall back on previous convictions and sentencing practices

you did it......this is what happens to you

and I have no doubt
many a convict learns to be HARD
having to serve time with other convicts.....who have done more heinous crimes
they learn to LIVE with criminal mindset

seems our criminal justice system relies on system
rather than judgement

 

[Polymath257]

The fear of punishment might be a deterrent, but if it isn't, what are our options?

Better social programs, including ones not oriented towards punishment.

More investment in minority communities and encouragement of minority businesses (many didn't qualify for the recent distributions---guess who did?).

More police from the communities they *serve*, so laws are enforced somewhat more fairly.

More attention, prosecution, and punishment of white collar crimes.

The list goes on and on.....

 

[Nimos]

I agree. However, our psychologists don't know enough yet to help us prevent crime.

Some of it is related to that... but a lot of it is simply linked to how our society works...

If you look at this:

ROME (Reuters) - Italy's mafia clans are taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to buy favour with poor families facing financial ruin, prosecutors and officials say, and are offering loans and food in what is seen as an age-old recruitment tactic.

He told Reuters the sharks start by offering loans at rates that compete with banks and later entrap borrowers by driving them up to 300%.

Federico Cafiero De Raho, Italy's national anti-mafia prosecutor, said his agents had noticed suspicious activity in Naples including Camorra clans distributing free food to families left short on cash by the national lockdown.

"We have evidence," De Raho told Reuters, declining to give details because investigations are ongoing.

Past experience suggests the mob could seek repayment for such largesse in the future by asking recipients to take on activities such as transporting drugs, he said.

These are normal people or at least some of them are, but they are desperate.. so what does people expect? These might not be able to borrow money from the bank and if they don't loan from mafia they might lose their home or whatever, so now you get a large or at least some "normal" people caught up in crimes, because clearly no one expect the mob to simply be friendly and help people. The issue is that our society is build a way, where people can exploit and take advantages of each other, because of how the economy works. If we could change that, you could probably reduce crime rates by 70-80% globally. If the system made sure that people could live decent and secured lives. Im not talking about extreme luxury, but simply a place to live, food on the table and free healthcare.

Imagine how many people around the world are forced to do crimes, because they have no other option. Obviously you will always have people that will try to cheat or do crimes regardless, so im not talking about removing all crimes, simply that you could reduce the amount greatly if things were done differently.