USA's Laws Are Too Soft On Crime

[joe1776]

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.....

The criminals that concern us most, the violent types aren't going to be changed by the social programs you mentioned. Although, I agree they are good ideas.

I'd like to see the idea of quarantine tried. For example, child molesters might be quarantined for life, even on a mild first offense, in an adult-only town where they could work and live normally but without access to children.

If that worked, the idea might be expanded to violent offenders.

 

[joe1776]

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.

You're right. Many, if not most, crimes begin because of failed or failing economic systems.

Money is useful in facilitating trade but it's also just as useful in facilitating crime.

 

[Nimos]

You're right. Many, if not most, crimes begin because of failed or failing economic systems.

Money is useful in facilitating trade but it's also just as useful in facilitating crime.

So if you could split the economy, so what you use to buy most food for is not linked to the rest of the economy. Basic housing is free and healthcare likewise. So even if you lose your job, you still have a place to live and food on the table and access to healthcare. So even if you go through a rough time, you are not forced into crime.

This economy could be completely sealed from the rest, so you couldn't trade or borrow it to anyone, so it could only be used for certain basic stuff. All other things you would like to buy, like a car, computers, larger house, wine, beers etc. could use another economy much like we know it today, which have nothing to do with the basic economy. That way people would not have to worry about whether they can pay rent next month or where their food comes from, even if they are poor. It might not be luxury food or a palace, but a decent home, which is suitable to live in and that meet all the demands for a healthy living.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But Americaa's "War on Crime," along with prohibition, is regarded as a monstrous failure. Why We Should Reconsider the War on Crime

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

But 'tough on crime' policies render the government and police the most serious threat to public safety. They add to the problem, threatening freedom, safety an security.

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.

So why is it that this over the top, protectionist system results in so many erroneous convictions, even for capital crimes where the bar should be especially high?

The conservatives are right on this issue. Because of the Blackstone Blunder, our laws are too soft on crime.

Yet despite the "Blackstone blunder," the US has a high rate of erroneous convictions, even for capital crimes where you'd expect the bar to be high.
Would you sweep up anyone suspicious, on flimsy evidence?
That would certainly be a boon to the prison industry, but would the public security be enhanced in a society that is little concerned with human rights or actual guilt?

You're advocating a police state.

 

[Sunstone]

I suppose it wasn't enough that I referred to crimes that cause serious harm to innocent citizens. I should have specifically said that I'm in favor of decriminalizing drugs and prostitution.

So? You are still in favor of convicting innocent people and throwing them into prisons where they are at grave risk of being even further abused by guards and other inmates. Why don't you just hold a national lottery to randomly select a few thousand people each year to be "made examples of"? I mean, if you give up the principle that the innocent people should not be punished, then why bother with the expense of a trial? Just hold a lottery, pick ten or twenty thousand innocent people, and screw up their lives for them.

 

[joe1776]

So if you could split the economy, so what you use to buy most food for is not linked to the rest of the economy. Basic housing is free and healthcare likewise. So even if you lose your job, you still have a place to live and food on the table and access to healthcare. So even if you go through a rough time, you are not forced into crime.

This economy could be completely sealed from the rest, so you couldn't trade or borrow it to anyone, so it could only be used for certain basic stuff. All other things you would like to buy, like a car, computers, larger house, wine, beers etc. could use another economy much like we know it today, which have nothing to do with the basic economy. That way people would not have to worry about whether they can pay rent next month or where their food comes from, even if they are poor. It might not be luxury food or a palace, but a decent home, which is suitable to live in and that meet all the demands for a healthy living.

What you have described will happen someday. But, first we humans have to invent a government that is efficient and free of corruption because that economy needs to be managed well.

 

[joe1776]

So? You are still in favor of convicting innocent people and throwing them into prisons where they are at grave risk of being even further abused by guards and other inmates. Why don't you just hold a national lottery to randomly select a few thousand people each year to be "made examples of"? I mean, if you give up the principle that the innocent people should not be punished, then why bother with the expense of a trial? Just hold a lottery, pick ten or twenty thousand innocent people, and screw up their lives for them.

You obviously have misunderstood my position.

Opposing the Blackstone Ratio doesn't give up on the idea that we should not convict innocent people. It only gives up on the idea of perverting the decision-making process by over-emphasis on that concern.

 

[Valjean]

I suppose it wasn't enough that I referred to crimes that cause serious harm to innocent citizens. I should have specifically said that I'm in favor of decriminalizing drugs and prostitution.

An aggressive police state would cause harm to innocent citizens.
I agree drug and prostitution laws should be liberalized. Laws enforcing "propriety," or prohibiting thought-crimes or "ickyness" have long been favorites of conservative, repressive states. Law should track actual, demonstrable harm.

There have been efforts to rehabilitate attempted in US prisons, but not with much success. Do you know of a program that has a proven high success rate?

The US is notorious for not rehabilitating prisnors; for warehousing. Programs with actual success rates, like prison education projects, are rarely funded in the US, and those that are are often shut down when the public finds out the state is mollycoddling prisoners on their dime.
Why Prison Education?

Programswith high success rates? Look to just about any other developed country.

 

[joe1776]

But Americaa's "War on Crime," along with prohibition, is regarded as a monstrous failure.

Prohibition was dumb law and the "War on Crime" was mostly rhetoric.https://time.com/3746059/war-on-crime-history/

But 'tough on crime' policies render the government and police the most serious threat to public safety. They add to the problem, threatening freedom, safety an security.

However, I'm suggesting flaws in the decision-making process.

Yet despite the "Blackstone blunder," the US has a high rate of erroneous convictions, even for capital crimes where you'd expect the bar to be high.

That's because the police and prosecution have become adept at cheating to get convictions. They wouldn't feel justified in cheating if the system wasn't rigged in favor of the criminal by Blackstone.

Would you sweep up anyone suspicious, on flimsy evidence?That would certainly be a boon to the prison industry, but would the public security be enhanced in a society that is little concerned with human rights or actual guilt? You're advocating a police state.

 

[Valjean]

Here in the UK we hear that President Trump commutes the sentencrs of his convicted friends and colleagues.

Justice starts at the top, I think.

Here you get the "justice" you can afford. To obtain convictions, the US uses a strange "plea bargain" system where suspects are given a dangerous choice between a short sentence if they plead guilty, or a long one should they dare -- with overworked, state supplied counsel -- to contest their guilt.

 

[joe1776]

An aggressive police state would cause harm to innocent citizens.

Yes, it would. I haven't suggested an aggressive police state.

I'm suggesting that we do away with laws that so often makes it impossible for a jury to get the information it needs to make a decision.

 

[Valjean]

Any suggestions on where I might begin?

Rehabilitation?
The jails are full of an underclass with no idea how to operate in society, no social skills and little education; a demographic from neighborhoods with no viable, economic alternative to crime, where successful criminals are the pillars of the community.

Show them an alternative, and give them the skills to function in the larger community, and they'll likely take advantage of the opportunity.

 

[Valjean]

Any suggestions on where I might begin?

See link, post #68.

 

[Valjean]

Having all the facts, an unbiased group, like a jury, should be able to arrive at a fair sentence.

Few of the accused get to a jury. Many don't want to risk it, knowing they can't afford competent counsel or investigation of the facts; knowing that, unable to afford bail, they could spend months or years in jail awaiting trial, even for petty crimes

They take plea deals.

 

[Valjean]

Thanks for the link. That's an interesting program. I don't know how well it would work in the USA, but we Americans need to try something different. What we have isn't working.

Americans are just too vindictive to go for anything effective, even if it'll save money and increase public safety in the long run.

One of my progressive opinions is that drugs should be legalized. Where do you stand on that?

Some drugs should be decriminalized, others strictly regulated. Decriminalization of relatively harmless, recreational drugs has worked well elsewhere. Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

But other drugs, like antibiotics, could cause serious harm if not strictly regulated.

 

[joe1776]

Few of the accused get to a jury. Many don't want to risk it, knowing they can't afford competent counsel or investigation of the facts; knowing that, unable to afford bail, they could spend months or years in jail awaiting trial, even for petty crimes

They take plea deals.

The irony is that the American system, built on Blackstone's goal of preventing the innocent from being found guilty often ends with the innocent sometimes pleading guilty rather than risk being convicted by a totally fouled up system.

 

[Tambourine]

I thought the answer was eliminate all humans.

That's the "Law and Order" approach to the problem.

 

[Valjean]

And I learn very much towards right-populism.

Like protecting the privileged classes and suppressing the troublesome idealists and underclasses? That's been the history of the right wing.

Those of us on the right are instinctively distrustful of state power.

Yet it's usually the conservatives who support laws against victimless crimes, thought-crimes and laws against impropriety.

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.

No argument here.

It would be if we knew how to do it.

But we have numerous examples, both here and abroad. We know how to rehabilitate and reduce crime. We just don't have the will to do it.
Rehabilitation doesn't assuage our ire at the criminals.

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

Good. Then go with the evidence, and apply proven techniques.
But that just isn't satisfying.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There have been efforts to rehabilitate attempted in US prisons, but not with much success. Do you know of a program that has a proven high success rate?

Weak, half-hearted attempts aren't all that likely to succeed. The rate of recidivism in the US is terrible for precisely that reason. There's tons of examples of evidence-based practices reducing recidivism. First and foremost among those is the simplest of all: treat a person like a criminal, and that's what he'll remain. Treat a person like a person who made a mistake that can be corrected -- and you've got a real chance.

 

[joe1776]

Good. Then go with the evidence, and apply proven techniques. But that just isn't satisfying.

You are missing the point.

Because of Blackstone-influenced laws, juries are unlikely to hear all the evidence. They might not even get the case at all.