|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:31 pm
So, while we have a discussion already going called Crime and Punishment, it is about one certain type of crime, and sort of touches on the general idea of how severe crimes should be punished. We need to know how we are going to deal with crimes and probably the judicial system. Is there something special that must be done as punishment for certain crimes? Basically, our topic is this: Ladyfriend Crime. Which crimes should be punished and in what way? Do we stay with the traditional and popular method of punishment for crimes (justice and revenge)? Or do we prefer reform through eduction and treatment? We may have to disuss each type of crime, as I believe that some crimes should be handled differently than others (if not every crime needs something different as punishment)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:36 am
Welcome back blaugh Deviant, in another thread Moral crimes are treated severely (Murder, Rape, that level) while the "lesser" crimes are treated with re-education. We still have to work on the justice system, which I can't even begin to think about. But it's very important that we shift focus towards "finding the truth" rather then get muddled up in the whole clever reading of the law, if that makes any sense? I think we tend to go for Prevention rather then punishment (see education).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:10 pm
Deviant Welcome back blaugh Deviant, in another thread Moral crimes are treated severely (Murder, Rape, that level) while the "lesser" crimes are treated with re-education. We still have to work on the justice system, which I can't even begin to think about. But it's very important that we shift focus towards "finding the truth" rather then get muddled up in the whole clever reading of the law, if that makes any sense? I think we tend to go for Prevention rather then punishment (see education). (thanks, good to be back mrgreen ) You're going to have to elaborate for my un-creative mind. When treated severely, do you mean capital punishment? And how "lesser" are we talking? It would seem kind of pointless to take every shoplifting criminal, for example, and send them to a re-education facility. So... what's an example of a "lesser" crime that would need re-education? Uh... finding the truth? Like reading the law the way it was meant to be read, rather than manipulating it for your own gain? Or something else? Being able to prevent crimes rather than having to punish all the criminals would be awesome... but how do we go about something like that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:43 pm
I'm not sure of my stance on things like death penalties and such, there's no real proof that it does or doesn't work (besides the obvious facts that you're unlikely to get repeat offenders blaugh ), How ever, if everything goes to plan, we could most likely afford to put really bad people behind bars for the rest of their lives (which is also pretty severe). So, The Deviants big list =
Crime 1 : things like rape and murder : Highest level of punishment = Death/life imprisonment
Crime 2 : Aggrevated assault, grand theft auto,etc. : Re-education while "working of their debt to humanity" in state owned farms/factories/etc.
Crime 3 :Fraud, petty theft, etc. : See Crime 2, but for less time.
Crime 4 : disruption of the peace, vandalism, etc. : Re-education and community service.
Like that? The crimes listed are examples of the level of "badness" the crime entails (this is obviously my view, it might be different for others) Finding the truth : Entering into the spirit of the law rather then the literal wording of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:51 pm
What about business fraud that takes like . . . millions of dollars? Or su(e?)ing companies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:06 pm
I suppose depending on the severity of the crime it could be bumped up a level?
RE: Sueing companies: Corporate law is scary eek I wouldn't even try to begin to understand how (if at all) we'd change that. I do know that holding the trail indefinitely (which seems to be a trick a lot of large companies with cash to spend like to do) should be reworked, to many people have been screwed by the fact that they couldn't afford to keep a trial going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:35 am
I'm thinking for some of the petty crimes like vandalism you shouldn't do the re-education unless it was a repeat offense. And some of the re-education things don't care if you learn it, it's just to make sure you watched the video. One of my parents, instead of getting a ticket, decided to watch the re-education video. One of the questions they had to answer was, "What was the color of the guy's shirt?" So basically, make sure that the re-education thing is to re-educate you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:51 pm
If you make an offence you obviously missed something when you were learning to be a good member of society. I think that re-education should be a first choice for first-violations and repeat offenders, only for small crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:27 am
Aperium If you make an offence you obviously missed something when you were learning to be a good member of society. I think that re-education should be a first choice for first-violations and repeat offenders, only for small crimes. Re-education should be manditory for most crimes. We dont want to be releasing people back into the world who havent changed since the crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:48 pm
What I am saying is, for crimes that do not harm others, there will be a fine. For a repeat offence, there will be a fine and then the re-education. Crimes like vandalism are petty crimes, and it seems like too much of a waste of time and money to do re-education for every crime like that on the first offence. It becomes too damn annoying to make the program, and what you get is something that does not care if you learned your lesson, but if you just watched the video or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:23 pm
Aeridea What I am saying is, for crimes that do not harm others, there will be a fine. For a repeat offence, there will be a fine and then the re-education. Crimes like vandalism are petty crimes, and it seems like too much of a waste of time and money to do re-education for every crime like that on the first offence. It becomes too damn annoying to make the program, and what you get is something that does not care if you learned your lesson, but if you just watched the video or something. Surely, it'd make more sense to show the petty criminal the error of their ways early, catch them before they start doing really bad things? I think it'd be more efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:55 pm
Deviant Aeridea What I am saying is, for crimes that do not harm others, there will be a fine. For a repeat offence, there will be a fine and then the re-education. Crimes like vandalism are petty crimes, and it seems like too much of a waste of time and money to do re-education for every crime like that on the first offence. It becomes too damn annoying to make the program, and what you get is something that does not care if you learned your lesson, but if you just watched the video or something. Surely, it'd make more sense to show the petty criminal the error of their ways early, catch them before they start doing really bad things? I think it'd be more efficient. Certainly that would be the best thing to do, in my opinion. The largest problem(as stated earlier) is that many of the people who would go through this process would not put in the effort necessary to change their ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:09 pm
Aperium Deviant Surely, it'd make more sense to show the petty criminal the error of their ways early, catch them before they start doing really bad things? I think it'd be more efficient. Certainly that would be the best thing to do, in my opinion. The largest problem(as stated earlier) is that many of the people who would go through this process would not put in the effort necessary to change their ways. First time offenders could be given the benefit of the doubt about their effort and willingness to change their ways. However, repeat offenders would need something more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:29 pm
Here's my view for a socially efficient legal system, we'll assume for now there's a very large budget and very little corruption.
Basically punishments last as long as it takes to rehabilitate a person and prisons become a sort of forced educational facility. We arm prisons with extensive teams of psychologists and teachers, build programs for reinserting reformed criminals into society, and work to change the existing norm to one that sees reformed criminals as capable and productive members of society, rather than potential repeat offenders.
Rehabilitation would strive to leave no one behind, repeat offences would be taken into serious consideration, with increasingly drastic forms of rehabilitation going towards third and fourth repeat offenders (personally I'm a fan of the SAI boot camp). Basically work towards building a system that provides no reasonable excuse for criminals not to succeed once they get out of prison.
Also, as a general rule in terms of legal reform, only crimes with victims or potential victims (example being DUI's) are actually crimes that require serious jail time. Special cases of voluntary incarceration for addicts and drug abusers would also be available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:27 am
((damn you, Gary Coleman! you're incessant nodding is hypnotising!)) I like Defunct's suggestions 3nodding although I'd have prisons be more a forced education facility/work farm. That way we could use that (initially quite large) work force to either partly pay for itself or subsidise food/basic needs production (should make it cheaper) PROs for this style of rehabilitation:
theoretical decrease in crime.
theoretical increase in education, particularily in the more hands-on fields (farming, construction,etc.)
Job creation :we'll need more teachers/ psychologists/ wardens/ guards/ foremen/ mechanics/ electricians/ plumbers/ etc.
CONS
initially expensive.
requires a lot of sociatal education before implementation.
also requires "buy in" from society, who often don't take to well to having their tax monies being spent on a known criminals education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
