Public punishment for public order offences?

Ronin247

twinQuins wrote: »

And yet it doesn't stop new criminals from springing up. Yes, that's definitely a "100% success rate" if you use a very loose definition of success.New criminals will spring up regardless.....the dead ones will not re-offend so yes, success.

No there wasn't. It was less reported. Stop parrottting this... what am I saying, this is AH. Carry on!

Incorrect,crime was not less reported,stop parrotting this rubbish.Murder rate has increased almost consistently since the 1950s.
http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/statistics_cri_crime_murder.html

benway wrote: »

Nope, that just isn't true. The world is a much more peaceful and orderly place today than in was in the past:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

Nice work on breaking the "bring back 'anging" duck though, was wondering his long it would take. What about all the innocent people that would and have inevitably been put to death? Wouldn't that make murders of all of us? And, of course, the death penalty has succeeded so well in keeping the crime rate down in the US....

The article you are showing is referring to wars which is a different subject.

Crime rates in the US have been dropping consistently since the 80s when America decided to get tough on criminals!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/america-serious-crime-rate-plunging

SeanW

The current system isn't working, just take a look at any part of Moyross for evidence.

To those saying "it's barbaric" what do you suggest instead?

benway

Ronin247 wrote: »

The article you are showing is referring to wars which is a different subject.

Crime rates in the US have been dropping consistently since the 80s when America decided to get tough on criminals!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/america-serious-crime-rate-plunging

Violence and disorder in general. Are you seriously saying that things were more orderly in the 18th century? Which is where you're trying to send us back to.

And the crime rate began to drop before "zero tolerance", "get tough" and all that nonsense. It peaked in 1980, dropped for a couple of years, then rose significantly until 1991, when it began to drop again. Maybe, just maybe, it might have had something to do with the economic situation, more so than policing tactics?

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

And I don't recall the stocks or spectacular punishments being in place in Ireland during the fifties. Do keep up.

But the public may not share that view. A recent poll showed most Americans feel crime is still getting worse.

That's what I found most interesting in that article - a lot like here, crime is static or decreasing slightly, but people still think the country's going to hell in a hand cart. I wonder why that might be?

SeanW wrote:

The current system isn't working, just take a look at any part of Moyross for evidence.

what do you suggest instead?

I'm suggesting that more equal and inclusive societies consistently have lower crime rates, and that this is the best way to reduce the crime rate. The current system isn't working, not because it's not extreme enough in the tactics it employs, but because these tactics aren't effective in seriously reducing the crime rate in the first place.

I'm suggesting creating no more ghettoes where much of the population are excluded from the mainstream, culturally and by reason of poverty. Leaving a community where crime is seen as the only available means of making a living beyond subsistence, where criminals can rule the roost.

Slum clearances have a lot to do with much of today's most entrenched social problems, whether you like it or not.

SeanW

benway wrote: »

I'm suggesting creating no more ghettoes where much of the population are excluded from the mainstream, culturally and by reason of poverty. Leaving a community where crime is seen as the only available means of making a living beyond subsistence, where criminals can rule the roost.

Slum clearances have a lot to do with much of today's most entrenched social problems, whether you like it or not.

I can agree, to a point, if a person commits crime because they need money, that's not good but that is an explanation. And indeed, it makes sense to look at the root cause of that, i.e. how the person came think that they had to commit crime to live.

However, a lot of crime has nothing whatsoever to do with the criminals means of making a living, how about people who throw rocks at trains and buses trying to cause damage/injury to passengers? People who vandalise playgrounds, steal cars, "joyride" in them (tearing up for example a local football pitch) then crash them into the goalposts and then set the car on fire? Oh and it's not just a poor neighbourhoods thing - sure Finglas and parts of Limerick are the worst but spoiled rich kids do it too - like that case outside Annabelle's Nightclub about 10 years ago. How about animal abuse? Again, that's a sign of a person being pure evil - like Mary Bale, or Katey Barber?

I think we can all agree that these cases have nothing whatsoever to do with money and lifestyle.

What do you propose to do with people who RIGHT NOW have no morals, no fear of the law and commit crimes for no reason other than to get perverse pleasure out of making other peoples (or animals) lives miserable?

Ronin247

benway wrote: »

Violence and disorder in general. Are you seriously saying that things were more orderly in the 18th century? Which is where you're trying to send us back to.Dont remember mentioning the 18th century, could you please provide a link??

And the crime rate began to drop before "zero tolerance", "get tough" and all that nonsense. It peaked in 1980, dropped for a couple of years, then rose significantly until 1991, when it began to drop again. Maybe, just maybe, it might have had something to do with the economic situation, more so than policing tactics? What particular economic situation?? Economies have gone from boom to bust a few times but crime rates continue dropping.

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

And I don't recall the stocks or spectacular punishments being in place in Ireland during the fifties. Do keep up.I actually said"Never mind the stocks idea,bring back full capital punishment for capital crimes,mandatory sentences for a range of crimes and a harsher regime in prison.Remove social welfare benefit entitlements from repeat offenders." Please try and keep up.


That's what I found most interesting in that article - a lot like here, crime is static or decreasing slightly, but people still think the country's going to hell in a hand cart. I wonder why that might be?


I'm suggesting that more equal and inclusive societies consistently have lower crime rates, and that this is the best way to reduce the crime rate. The current system isn't working, not because it's not extreme enough in the tactics it employs, but because these tactics aren't effective in seriously reducing the crime rate in the first place.So if we give the criminals a share of our hard earned wealth they will stop robbing us:eek:Jesus wept.

I'm suggesting creating no more ghettoes where much of the population are excluded from the mainstream, culturally and by reason of poverty. Leaving a community where crime is seen as the only available means of making a living beyond subsistence, where criminals can rule the roost.

Slum clearances have a lot to do with much of today's most entrenched social problems, whether you like it or not.

A sense of entitlement and no fear of the law has even more to do with todays most entrenched social problems,whether you like it or not.

sbyrne92

public punishment is a bit on the farce side. there are more appropriate ways to deal with things these days.

AeoNGriM

faceman wrote: »

Corporal punishment is never justified and it doesn't work. If it did there would be no crime in states with the death penalty and countries that have religious laws.

Incorrect. It obviously works as those executed don't re-offend.

:pac: