USA's Laws Are Too Soft On Crime

[QuestioningMind]

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?

I couldn't disagree with you more. We give our legal system the authority to take away a person's freedom and liberty. And with that authority comes a huge responsibility. I would much rather that we err on the side of letting some guilty people off than to allow innocent people to be punished. If that means that law enforcement has to jump through some legal hoops in order for the legal system to exercise its authority, then so be it. Any legal system is subject to possible abuse. I would much prefer that individual criminals have a better chance of abusing the system than giving the state a better chance of abusing the system.

 

[joe1776]

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.

You are talking about changing human behavior. I'm skeptical about your claims because there's no evidence that psychologists can do that effectively in the non-criminal population.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But, alas, justice has come to mean 'vengeance' in common parlance.
Watch some of the police procedurals and note when 'justice' is mentioned ("We must get justice for little Suzy!") In every case revenge could be substituted with no change in meaning. They've come to be synonyms.
America is about punishment, not justice.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

If the objective a any criminal justice system is revenge, ("assuaging our ire at criminals") then it will remain forever hopeless at reparative and restorative measures.

If the attitude surrounding incarceration is, first, to protect the public from a dangerous individual, and second, to help that person to become a less dangerous one, then there's tons of hope.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Um, that is exactly what jail is.

 

[joe1776]

I couldn't disagree with you more. We give our legal system the authority to take away a person's freedom and liberty. And with that authority comes a huge responsibility. I would much rather that we err on the side of letting some guilty people off than to allow innocent people to be punished. If that means that law enforcement has to jump through some legal hoops in order for the legal system to exercise its authority, then so be it. Any legal system is subject to possible abuse. I would much prefer that individual criminals have a better chance of abusing the system than giving the state a better chance of abusing the system.

Every other decision-making system on the planet tries to eliminate bias and make fewer errors. Blackstone intentionally builds a bias into the decision process of criminal justice which intentionally creates more errors in judgment.

Why?

Because, for some reason beyond my understanding, the errors that screw with those accused of crimes bothers people more than the errors that screw with innocent victims.

 

[Valjean]

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.

And harsh sentences have not been shown to be a deterrent to crime. Most criminals, especially violent criminals, are impulsive. There's not a lot of risk-benefit analysis going on.

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.

Lock a criminal up and release him unchanged, or further damaged, and you'll still have a criminal. Double the sentence and he'll just be further enculturated with criminal values and unable to function in society.
Punishment isn't working. You have to fix the criminal.[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Part of the problem is that the US system is an adversarial one where the government is expected to prove its case to a jury. Before I go on, I also want to emphasize that this is also a strength to the US system. A government cannot institute a vendetta against an individual or group in quite the same way as it could in other systems.

But, for example, the situation in France, under the Napoleonic code, gives judges huge powers to investigate the exact situations of a crime with the goal of determining the truth of the matter and then deciding justice. This means that the judge hears all the evidence, but gives tremendous power to those judges.

This also gets into the idea of 'entrapment', where the government sets out to 'trick' or 'tempt' someone into an unlawful act that they may not have done otherwise. It is partly to avoid these scenarios that some evidence is made to be off limits if the government oversteps its legitimate powers. And, since it is the government arguing the case, it would potentially have great power to sway a jury by hiding exculpatory evidence from that jury. This happened commonly prior to those rules being adopted.

Which leads to another problem: we don't punish cops for doing horrendous acts, even when caught on camera. This means the government representatives are distrusted in many communities that need them most. So, the actual evidence that can be obtained is frequently tainted by the police collecting that evidence.

 

[Mitty]

Yeah, it's such a shame we don't convict and ruin the lives of many more innocent people than we already do. Such a shame.

On a per capita basis, the US has more people rotting in prison than any other nation on earth -- and you're saying we have a problem convicting people?

Is that because the 13th amendment supports and endorses prison-slavery businesses, and as seen in the national anthem which was an old drinking song about a long forgotten battle which endorses slavery too?
For-Profit Prisons: American Slavery, Under New Management
Calls for ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ to be replaced with a new US national anthem - Classic FM

 

[joe1776]

Um, that is exactly what jail is.

You see no difference between living one's life confined to a town and an otherwise normal life than living in a cell behind bars? Are you serious?

 

[Valjean]

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

What do you mean by "too soft?"

Harsher sentences haven't been shown to either reduce crime or reduce recidivism.
You say you value correct decisions. That would mean evidence based decisions. But you seem to be ignoring the evidence, here.

 

[joe1776]

Part of the problem is that the US system is an adversarial one where the government is expected to prove its case to a jury. Before I go on, I also want to emphasize that this is also a strength to the US system. A government cannot institute a vendetta against an individual or group in quite the same way as it could in other systems.

But, for example, the situation in France, under the Napoleonic code, gives judges huge powers to investigate the exact situations of a crime with the goal of determining the truth of the matter and then deciding justice. This means that the judge hears all the evidence, but gives tremendous power to those judges.

This also gets into the idea of 'entrapment', where the government sets out to 'trick' or 'tempt' someone into an unlawful act that they may not have done otherwise. It is partly to avoid these scenarios that some evidence is made to be off limits if the government oversteps its legitimate powers. And, since it is the government arguing the case, it would potentially have great power to sway a jury by hiding exculpatory evidence from that jury. This happened commonly prior to those rules being adopted.

Which leads to another problem: we don't punish cops for doing horrendous acts, even when caught on camera. This means the government representatives are distrusted in many communities that need them most. So, the actual evidence that can be obtained is frequently tainted by the police collecting that evidence.

I think a future criminal justice system will have cases investigated and judged by expert panels. For example, if you were falsely changed with murder by the police, your case would be investigated by a 33 member panel with an average IQ of 130 trained for investigating and judging murder cases. A two-thirds majority would be required to convict (the equivalent of reasonable doubt).

You should like this because, since you aren't guilty, you want to be judged by a process that is the most likely to make the right decision.

 

[joe1776]

What do you mean by "too soft?"

I explained in the OP that the Blackstone ratio creates a bias in favor of those accused of crimes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are talking about changing human behavior. I'm skeptical about your claims because there's no evidence that psychologists can do that effectively in the non-criminal population.

But be careful how you map these things out. Certainly, changing innate characteristics (such as homosexuality) has proven to be pretty much a useless endeavour. On the other hand, some people engage in homosexuality not because they are homosexual by nature, but because that's what's available (in prison, at war in the services, unisex environments like boarding schools and the like), but when normal relations are again available, they revert without even bothering to try.

Yes, there are criminal by nature -- sadists and psychopaths and so on -- who are unlikely to be cured. But there are also many, many (and perhaps even most) who are criminals by circumstance. Forced into it, like Jean Valjean (Les Miserables, Victor Hugo) for example, by wretched poverty and starvation, or addictions, or any number of other factors presently, but not permanently, outside of their control.

I think you should consider that, too.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But justice for the accused is the same thing as protecting the innocent.
How is relaxing legal protections for the accused not the same as protecting the innocent?

It would be if we knew how to do it.

but we do. How are you not aware of this?

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

Tough on crime and lax on preventing miscarriages of justice? What other effect would that have?

 

[joe1776]

But be careful how you map these things out. Certainly, changing innate characteristics (such as homosexuality) has proven to be pretty much a useless endeavour. On the other hand, some people engage in homosexuality not because they are homosexual by nature, but because that's what's available (in prison, at war in the services, unisex environments like boarding schools and the like), but when normal relations are again available, they revert without even bothering to try.

Yes, there are criminal by nature -- sadists and psychopaths and so on -- who are unlikely to be cured. But there are also many, many (and perhaps even most) who are criminals by circumstance. Forced into it, like Jean Valjean (Les Miserables, Victor Hugo) for example, by wretched poverty and starvation, or addictions, or any number of other factors presently, but not permanently, outside of their control.

I think you should consider that, too.

I do agree that much of the crime is caused by an economic situation. There's still more that results from temporary emotional problems. These people can be helped.

In my skeptical mode, I had in mind the more violent and the perverted -- unlikely to change.

 

[Valjean]

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.

The state has money and power. The accused does not. Juries are more likely to miss exculpatory evidence than evidence of guilt.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Every other decision-making system on the planet tries to eliminate bias and make fewer errors. Blackstone intentionally builds a bias into the decision process of criminal justice which intentionally creates more errors in judgment.

Why?

Because, for some reason beyond my understanding, the errors that screw with those accused of crimes bothers people more than the errors that screw with innocent victims.

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

While the idea of convicting the innocent is revolting, avoiding it should not be the primary goal.

I see the above two statements as completely contradictory. Convicting the innocent is the complete opposite of protecting the innocent. So if you're willing to let the system convict innocent people you really can't say that your primary goal is to protect innocent people. We bestow upon the criminal justice system the unique and very powerful authority to deny citizens their freedoms and liberties. In order to truly protect innocent people it's imperative that we develop a system that holds the criminal justice system to an extremely high standard.

What you're calling the 'Blackstone bias' is simply another name for those high standards it's imperative we require of law enforcement. Like insisting that police have a valid warrant prior to searching a citizen's home. It's a law and if the state breaks that law when an officer searches a person's home without a valid warrant then the state needs to be punished. The punishment for failing to abide by the law is that law enforcement can't use any evidence found during that search in a court of law.

So when a police officer illegally searches a citizen's home and finds irrefutable evidence that the citizen killed his wife, it's easy to see the fact that this evidence can't be used in court to convict the criminal of a crime as a 'loophole' that the law provides for the criminal, because justice for the wife of the citizen certainly hasn't been served. But the lack of justice for the wife isn't due to the system being 'too soft' on crime, it's due to the fact that law enforcement broke the law by searching a citizen's house illegally. And it's absolutely essential that there be consequences for the state when they break the law, otherwise no police officer will ever have the incentive to get a legal warrant to search a person's home.

I agree that the primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm. But that doesn't just mean protecting innocent victims of crime, it also means protecting innocent citizens from conviction, because being convicted of a crime you didn't commit IS serious harm. And the only way to ensure that such harm doesn't occur is to hold our law enforcement to the highest of standards.

 

[joe1776]

But justice for the accused is the same thing as protecting the innocent.

No, it isn't. Using Blackstone makes it more difficult to convict the innocent but at the same time it makes it more difficult to convict the guilty. There's no free lunch.

Tough on crime and lax on preventing miscarriages of justice? What other effect would that have?

Making the right decisions on crime as often as humanly possible would not result in a justice system that gave us any reason for shame.

 

[joe1776]

The state has money and power. The accused does not. Juries are more likely to miss exculpatory evidence than evidence of guilt.

All the state's money won't buy the admission of evidence prohibited by law. But you're right, in the current system, a defendant with money has a big advantage.