Harsher penalites are the only way to reduce crime. Prove me wrong.

[tubby_mcgee 700]

I'll see stories on FB, etc...someone committed some evil crime. 

Many folks will leave  comments like "What's wrong with people?!" or "People like that shouldn't be allowed to have kids" etc.  or "cops should do a better job" etc.

I often leave comments  like this "The ONLY way to decrease/deter crime is more severe penalties"  and I'll reference some harsh penalties that people don't like.

Certain folks, many folks respond with "that's too harsh" etc. 

I then say "Okay, so name something that will actually reduce crime/deter someone"

No one ever can.   So it seems, that building huge jails and giving out "til you die in prison" sentences, or "bullet to the head 5 minutes after found guilty" (in certain instances where guilt is 100% known), is the only way we can slow/reduce/deter crime. 

But as a country, we won't.  Why not?  Job security for those that deal with criminals? 

Back to my original question.  Name something feasible,  other than harsher penalties that will actually work to deter crime. 

[seafoam1 2,837]

I would love to expand the death penalty and speed up the process of executing it. 

[tubby_mcgee 700]

14 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I would love to expand the death penalty and speed up the process of executing it. 

Yep.  Absolutely. Quit wasting money.   "You were found guilty and there was video evidence of your crime, court adjourned" and they walk them to a room with a good drainage system, shoot them in the head, rinse them off, shrink wrap them,  give them to the family.  Entire "after court process" is  18 minutes. Tops. Less with a good "dryer system" in place.

I'd even accept building massive prisons with "in prison til you're dead" penalties if society can't get behind  option#1.

Crime would decrease due to:

1.) repeat offending isn't possible

2.) fear of not being able to be a repeat offender

[Fireballer 2,640]

15 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I would love to expand the death penalty and speed up the process of executing it. 

 

[seafoam1 2,837]

1 minute ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Yep.  Absolutely. Quit wasting money.   "You were found guilty and there was video evidence of your crime, court adjourned" and they walk them to a room with a good drainage system, shoot them in the head, rinse them off, bag them,  give them to the family. 

I'd even accept building massive prisons with "in prison til you're dead" penalties if society can't get behind  option#1.

Crime would decrease due to:

1.) repeat offending isn't possible

2.) fear of not being able to be a repeat offender

That chick that slammed the girl's head on the concrete? Why the fock is she still walking the earth?

[GobbleDog 987]

2 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Yep.  Absolutely. Quit wasting money.   "You were found guilty and there was video evidence of your crime, court adjourned" and they walk them to a room with a good drainage system, shoot them in the head, rinse them off, shrink wrap them,  give them to the family.  Entire "after court process" is  18 minutes. Tops. Less with a good "dryer system" in place.

Costs more to execute. Want to limit appeals and make it cheaper, fine wrongful executions increases. How many can you stomach?  Family members of the condemned didn't do anything wrong, yet they lose a father/son/brother etc. More innocent families in misery is a good idea? And for what? Capital punishment has no deterrence. Nobody ever thought "I'd kill him, if it were only life in prison, but that death penalty is too much... oh well." Then there's state-sanctioned executions - ya think the US should be on the most state executions list with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, etc?  That's the mentality of those countries.

The old "just kill 'em after they're found guilty" acting like a tough guy on crime. Ain't much thought behind it.

I do support long prison sentences for violent crime, though the US already has some of the harshest penalties in the world.

[seafoam1 2,837]

5 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Costs more to execute. Want to limit appeals and make it cheaper, fine wrongful executions increases. How many can you stomach?  Family members of the condemned didn't do anything wrong, yet they lose a father/son/brother etc. More innocent families in misery is a good idea? And for what? Capital punishment has no deterrence. Nobody ever thought "I'd kill him, if it were only life in prison, but that death penalty is too much... oh well." Then there's state-sanctioned executions - ya think the US should be on the most state executions list with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, etc?  That's the mentality of those countries.

The old "just kill 'em after they're found guilty" acting like a tough guy on crime. Ain't much thought behind it.

I do support long prison sentences for violent crime, though the US already has some of the harshest penalties in the world.

It's not a "tough guy" act to want to rid this earth of the cancer that are criminals. Someone rapes your daughter you want them gone from existence so they can't do it again. Same with assault, robbery, etc...

 

 

[tubby_mcgee 700]

17 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Costs more to execute.

 

It also costs like $38 for 2 Tylenol from the hospital.  But does it REALLY cost that much?  And SHOULD IT? 

 

 

17 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

The old "just kill 'em after they're found guilty" acting like a tough guy on crime. Ain't much thought behind it.

How is it an ACT if we follow through?  I agree there isn't much THOUGHT behind it.  Its because we don't want to slow or deter crime.  

Its an ACT that we want to deter crime.  We don't.  If we did ACTUALLY want to, we'd start doing things that actually would deter crime. 

I HONESTLY believe that the the US is kept at a "certain" crime level.   If crime disappeared, or were even cut in half,   MILLIONS of jobs would disappear.

 

17 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

 the US already has some of the harshest penalties in the world.

Yippee skippee. What's the difference where something ranks if it isn't working?   Personally, I want actual results, not high rankings. 

 

[Mike Honcho 5,189]

Enforce the laws for hiring illegal immigrants, which I believe is 10K per offense.  Maybe offer a reward of 20% of the total fines to people who report said activities.  So much illegal immigration would stop if the reason they come here(jobs under the table) were removed from the equation. 

I've also said that politicians who are the loudest to complain about illegal immigration really don't want to do anything about it for two reasons.  One, they love having the issue to complain about.  Two, way too much of their money comes from people/corporations who hire illegals, so they demonize the illegals rather than those donors who are benefiting from their cheap work. 

 

[GobbleDog 987]

11 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Personally, I want actual results, not high rankings.

Then you should be most concerned with reducing poverty.

[GobbleDog 987]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Enforce the laws for hiring illegal immigrants, which I believe is 10K per offense.  

Agreed, it's always been the cost of doing business. The penalty should be you're permanently out of business. That'd stop it.

[seafoam1 2,837]

1 minute ago, GobbleDog said:

Then you should be most concerned with reducing poverty.

People who are impovershed should be working hard to reduce their poverty. For one thing, stop having kids if you are broke.  Go work 2-3 jobs. Spend wisely. 

[Dizkneelande 1,093]

Fake news drooling leftists say crime is down 

[RLLD 4,156]

Crimes committed by those in positions of authority should be doubled.

[tubby_mcgee 700]

Just now, GobbleDog said:

Then you should be most concerned with reducing poverty.

That's not this topic, but I'll bite.

1. Go to work.  Some can't. I get that. Some simply don't.  They are a big part of the problem.  We can't justifiably just "rid the Earth of them" like we can criminals.   Poverty is often brought on by the decisions of those in poverty.  A victim of a crime doesn't make a decision to be a victim of a crime. 

2. Criminals make a conscious decision to commit crime.  Many poor people don't make the direct decision to be in their situation.

3.) IF we penalized crime like I suggest, CRIME would be reduced by 80-90%.   Think of how much money would be saved due to:
A.) looters not destroying Targets, etc. 
B.) Folks not stealing from self checkouts
C.) Folks not stealing in general
D.) Not having as many police
E. ) Not having as many security guards
This list could be 200 items long.


Now, with that money saved,  think of how many of those in poverty could be helped. 

[tubby_mcgee 700]

6 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

The penalty should be you're permanently out of business. That'd stop it.

That was my entire point of this thread. 

If crime is your business, you should be permanently put out of business.  

See below: 

 

1 hour ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Crime would decrease due to:

1.) repeat offending isn't possible

2.) fear of not being able to be a repeat offender

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,081]

15 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Then you should be most concerned with reducing poverty.

Bringing in millions of more poor people ought to help with that. 

[tubby_mcgee 700]

6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Crimes committed by those in positions of authority should be doubled.

Doubled sure...but...doubling of a slap on wrist isn't much.

A while back I had a post about a "point system"..  When you hit XX points, you're done.  Either in prison forever or a bullet in the head.

LIke when you hit 100 points, you're a goner.

Basic speeding  = 1/4 point. 

Severe speeding  in automobile (like doubling speed limit or going over 120 mph without a reason, etc) = 2 points

Rape = 100 points.

Murder = 100 points

Attempted rape = 100 points

Molesting a kid = 100 points

Theft of anything = 5 points

Sliding scale on theft based on dollar amount...maxes out at 95 points? Maybe 100 points?

Vandalism on a sliding $ scale...

The last time I referenced, this, someone put "Cooking Seafood in the Microwave = $100 points"  or something like that.  lol.

 

Through all of this, no one has came up with a way to reduce crime as effectively as harsher penalties that are actually enforced.  When I ask, usually I get responses like "Have the police quit bullying black people" or "we don't need those harsh penalties, we just need people to be nice"  (and comments like this will get likes, thumbs up and hip hip hoorays). 

 

[tubby_mcgee 700]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Bringing in millions of more poor people ought to help with that. 

Bingo.  Proof the gubment wants NOTHING to do with slowing poverty.  ZEEERRRRRO.     The ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY reason they want those poor people here, is one word. Votes. Nothing more.  They'd GLADLY have MORE poverty, MORE crime, MORE problems if it means VOTES for them.  That's ALL those folks are seen as. 

No can come up with a rational argument to that. 

[Herbivore 1,119]

7 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Doubled sure...but...doubling of a slap on wrist isn't much.

A while back I had a post about a "point system"..  When you hit XX points, you're done.  Either in prison forever or a bullet in the head.

LIke when you hit 100 points, you're a goner.

Basic speeding  = 1/4 point. 

Severe speeding  in automobile (like doubling speed limit or going over 120 mph without a reason, etc) = 2 points

Rape = 100 points.

Murder = 100 points

Attempted rape = 100 points

Molesting a kid = 100 points

Theft of anything = 5 points

Sliding scale on theft based on dollar amount...maxes out at 95 points? Maybe 100 points?

Vandalism on a sliding $ scale...

The last time I referenced, this, someone put "Cooking Seafood in the Microwave = $100 points"  or something like that.  lol.

 

Through all of this, no one has came up with a way to reduce crime as effectively as harsher penalties that are actually enforced.  When I ask, usually I get responses like "Have the police quit bullying black people" or "we don't need those harsh penalties, we just need people to be nice"  (and comments like this will get likes, thumbs up and hip hip hoorays). 

 

when someone is executed in error, all of the people that voted for these laws are responsible, and will then need to be executed.

[weepaws 3,158]

Removed Alcohol and Drugs would make for less crime, stupid high and drunk people running around doing stupid things daily.  

[tubby_mcgee 700]

16 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

when someone is executed in error, all of the people that voted for these laws are responsible, and will then need to be executed.

Executions would take place only with video or dna evidence. 

[tubby_mcgee 700]

16 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Removed Alcohol and Drugs would make for less crime, stupid high and drunk people running around doing stupid things daily.  

Yeah. But...no.  That's a DECISION also.  Just like "should I rape this person or not".

These folks that can't handle alcohol or drugs, would eventually be weeded out by the points system.  They choose to use alcohol, and if it makes them beat their wife or whatever...buh-bye.

Sort of like why we don't give DUI's to those that don't drink and drive. 

I don't drink at all, but i think it should absolutely be allowed and enjoyed. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,081]

America has the harshest penalties in the world. I guess, if you exclude Asia, Russia, Africa, South America and Central America and the Middle East.  Anyone want to go to the hand chopping down at the stadium today? 

[tubby_mcgee 700]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

America has the harshest penalties in the world. I guess, if you exclude Asia, Russia, Africa, South America and Central America and the Middle East.  Anyone want to go to the hand chopping down at the stadium today? 

If that started, much crime would be reduced. 

Problem is America doesn't truly want to reduce crime.

Suuuuurrreee ...the words "OH but yesssss we truly want to  reduce crime!" are used often.  But those words don't get it done.  People GLADLY use words.  "We should be nice to people", "People need to just get along" -- "We should ban guns" -  folks think when they say those things, that they are offering good advice on decreasing crime. 

Words of "Gosh I I really want to reduce crime" don't reduce crime.
Punishments that are severe enough do reduce crime.

[weepaws 3,158]

26 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Yeah. But...no.  That's a DECISION also.  Just like "should I rape this person or not".

These folks that can't handle alcohol or drugs, would eventually be weeded out by the points system.  They choose to use alcohol, and if it makes them beat their wife or whatever...buh-bye.

Sort of like why we don't give DUI's to those that don't drink and drive. 

I don't drink at all, but i think it should absolutely be allowed and enjoyed. 

Disagree, it leads to problems.  

[listen2me 23 1,836]

27 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

America has the harshest penalties in the world. I guess, if you exclude Asia, Russia, Africa, South America and Central America and the Middle East.  Anyone want to go to the hand chopping down at the stadium today? 

Yeah what actually is this?  I glossed over that because I am not going to go do research.  But I can name several countries off the top of my head that have way tougher penalties over something like theft.  In America cops in Cali can't even pursue a non violent crime.  

The USA has some of the harshiest penalties?  Really?   You could hold up a store with a gun and be out in a few months.  

The harshest?  I don't believe that at all.  

[tubby_mcgee 700]

35 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Disagree, it leads to problems.  

A lot of things that humans have access to, lead to problems.  

My guns aren't a problem.
My torx head screw driver isn't a problem.
My food intake isn't a problem.
My alcohol use isn't a problem.

Should steroids be illegal for the common guy?
Should marijuana use be illegal?  Only reason I don't want it legal in public...Is I hate the smell. I shouldn't be subject to it. 

If drinking alcohol meant that while folks did it, some of it sprayed all over and went on me and down my throat, I'd be against it also. 

Additionally if the penalties for drinking and driving were severe enough, it would all but come to a stop. 

 

 

[jonnyutah 256]

We absolutely have an under incarceration issue here. 

I dont care about rehabilitation. Criminals belong behind bars. 

You know who cant steal a car? The guy in jail for stealing cars. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

Calm down, woman.

[listen2me 23 1,836]

Just now, Pimpadeaux said:

Calm down, woman.

Says the cat lady lol

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

2 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

We absolutely have an under incarceration issue here. 

I dont care about rehabilitation. Criminals belong behind bars. 

You know who cant steal a car? The guy in jail for stealing cars. 

You know who can't shoot another person? The guy whose gun application got declined because he has a history of violence and mental issues.

[Herbivore 1,119]

1 hour ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Executions would take place only with video or dna evidence. 

can't taint those. so you should be good with accepting responsibilty if an innocent is executed.

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

2 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

Says the cat lady lol

Real men such as Morrissey love cats.

[tubby_mcgee 700]

4 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

You know who can't shoot another person? The guy whose gun application got declined because he has a history of violence and mental issues.

I agree with better background checks. But they can still find guns. 

You can't, however commit a crime though, without committing a crime.  Hindsight is 20/20.  Commit a crime, get rid of the perp. 

 

9 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

You know who cant steal a car? The guy in jail for stealing cars. 

I agree Johnny...that's covered in #2 below:

3 hours ago, tubby_mcgee said:

1.) repeat offending isn't possible

2.) fear of not being able to be a repeat offender

 

[tubby_mcgee 700]

6 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

can't taint those. so you should be good with accepting responsibilty if an innocent is executed.

 

So, no using  evidence allowed to convict anyone ever?   So lets let everyone go?  I don't like that idea.

I know you didn't say that exactly but it can be inferred by your comment. 

[zsasz 362]

The narrative of being "tough on crime" is pretty much gone these days;from both sides of the political aisle.  Otherwise, our 45th President of the United States...who is running again, wouldn't be getting so much support despite being charged with a number of crimes.  Not only that; but he's promising to free and pardon a number of people who committed crimes on 1/6 at the Capitol.

[tubby_mcgee 700]

8 minutes ago, zsasz said:

The narrative of being "tough on crime" is pretty much gone these days;from both sides of the political aisle.  Otherwise, our 45th President of the United States...who is running again, wouldn't be getting so much support despite being charged with a number of crimes.  Not only that; but he's promising to free and pardon a number of people who committed crimes on 1/6 at the Capitol.

You have to understand, those that support him, see his being charged with these crimes as being done so to stop him from running.  They see motive.  Just like they see motive with bringing more poor people into the country to use up resources that we don't have enough of already.   A current president who was not charged with anything because he was deemed "incompetent to stand trial" -- folks have a problem with what at the least can be argued as a double standard.
 

[zsasz 362]

Just now, tubby_mcgee said:

You have to understand, those that support him, see his being charged with these crimes as being done so to stop him from running.  They see motive.  Just like they see motive with bringing more poor people into the country to use up resources that we don't have enough of already.   A current president who was not charged with anything because he was deemed "incompetent to stand trial" -- folks have a problem with what at the least can be argued as a double standard.
 

Aren't jails full of people who claim "lawyer fuched me?", "it's the corrupt system that did me in" and " I was set up"?   Every criminal in the country should follow the lead of the leaders of the RIght and just scream "PROCESS CRIME" when they are caught.  

[tubby_mcgee 700]

19 minutes ago, zsasz said:

Aren't jails full of people who claim "lawyer fuched me?", "it's the corrupt system that did me in" and " I was set up"?   Every criminal in the country should follow the lead of the leaders of the RIght and just scream "PROCESS CRIME" when they are caught.  

 

Sure. Imagine you live here, near me, and someone accuses you of something you didn't do and I hold court of my own at my residence and you're found guilty (I'd make sure you were), then, I take you to a room,  people pound 40% of the blood out of you, would you be okay with that, since you were found guilty?  Or...heck, even since you were accused.