Marijuana.com

Stephanie S.

This is a subject brought up in another thread.
My assertation is that fear of punishment does not deter crime.

Both locally and globally I think that on the whole, humans act criminally out of passion, moral and/or religious belief, drug induced (perpetuated by prohibition) crime, sex offendenses, murders..happen without fear of punishment. The recidivism rates in this country are clear evidence that having once been in prison doesn't stop a person from walking out of the prison walls and committing another felony.

Murder is a violent act of passion, much of the time. Armed robbery is an act of desperation and stupidity. When one is desperate is he really thinking of jail time? Narcotics addiction and need for the drug will overcome any fear of punishment if the jones is bad enough.

Globally, I just don't see how any country intimidating and attacking another is going to instill a message of fear in terrorists worldwide. These people are acting from a completely different mentality than the rest of the world. The radical Muslims have built their organizations by repressing their women and by trying to intimidate others through acts of violence...all in the name of Allah. The U.S. does not fight based upon a religious mentality, right? Well they do, and nothing we do is going to instill any sense of fear in them. They are on a trip to heaven when they die. It is a blessing for them to die in the name of jihad.

I don't think that it is possible to rid the war of terrorists or local car theives.
They are what they are often, even after being punished or threatened with punishment, they repeat the same thing that got them into trouble in the first place.

What do you think? Does fear of punishment keep you from committing crimes? Or is it fear of getting CAUGHT that stops you? Do you think that the U.S. can send a message of fear to terrorists, a threat of punishment and will it work?


peace

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)

 

Cassius

It's certainly fear of getting caught that deters a person. However without any punishment, getting caught is a toothless crocodile.

Certainly, if the punishment for murder were a one dollar ($1.00) fine, the amount of murders would go up. I'm ashamed to admit that there are a couple of people I would give more than a first thought to killing if the only punishment were a dollar fine, although I don't think I would go through with it (at least I hope I wouldn't).

So the punishment behind getting caught has to be at least REASONABLE, or else it's an empty threat.

However, assuming the punishment is reasonable, raising it higher has little if any effect on deterrence, I would advocate.

The reasoning I have for this is exactly what you stated -- that oftentimes the mind behind the criminal isn't thinking about punishment or deterrence or how many years it will land them in jail. In fact many times the mind is irrational and, in many cases, blinded by emotion.

I view it like this. Reasonable minds weigh consequences -- they think "If I do this and get caught, the punishment is this. If I do this and don't get caught, the reward is this. The likelihood of me getting caught is X%, therefore I choose to take the chance (or not take the chance)." However, through desperation (as you mentioned above) or fury or jealosy or any number of other emotions, there comes a point at which the mind becomes irrational to the ways of logic, and instead thinks, "I want this to happen so badly (whatever outcome I'm talking about, the murder of my traitorous wife or the plundering of the city bank or whatever) that I'm simply not going to get caught. Getting caught isn't a consideration one way or the other, because I _must_ do this."

The point at which a mind reaches that level of irrationality differs from person to person. I also believe that the level of punishment attached to a crime affects where this point of irrationality lies.

For example, the punishment for speeding is relatively minor, so most people consider breaking that law logically ("it's late at night, no cops are on this road, i think the probability of getting caught is low and the punishment is also low, therefore the reward of getting there faster outweighs that").

The punishment for murder is usually one of the strictest on the lawbooks, no matter your jurisdiction. Therefore, you don't see many people comparatively considering the level of reward (getting rid of an enemy) versus the punishment (life in jail in many cases) versus the probability of being caught. Instead, most murderers act out of emotion, not logic.

People who commit crimes logically can be deterred. People who commit crimes emotionally cannot, for the exact reasons you stated above Steph. Raising the level of punishment does reduce the amount of logical offenders, but it is my belief that anything punishment beyond what most people would consider to be reasonable for the offense, has diminishing returns on the reduction of logical offenders of that law.

This is most easily construed when looking at laws where there is a large margin for punishment increase. Going back to the example of speeding, what would happen if the punishment was no longer a fine, but a week in jail? I bet you a joint that the number of speeders would be reduced to a marginal amount in a very short period of time.

The punishment is above what is normally considered reasonable, therefore the logical offenders have almost completely been removed.

What effect would raising the punishment even further have? Say, instead of a week in jail you were never allowed to drive again for the rest of your life? Or instead of a week in jail they gave you a year in jail? The answer is, most people would think, what's the difference? A week in jail is already so much punishment for such a small crime that almost no one would logically commit it, so raising the punishment further above what is reasonable accomplishes nothing, and serves no purpose as a deterrence.

CONCLUSION: Punishment is a continuum. At the left you have zero punishment for a crime, somewhere in the middle you have "reasonable" punishment, and at the far right they execute you for the crime (whatever crime we're talking about). Punishment from the zero end of the scale to the "reasonable" point in the middle DOES serve as deterrence (for logical offenders only). Punishment beyond what is normally considered "reasonable" for a crime of that particular magnitude has NO effect on deterrence (because the logical offenders have already been deterred, and the emotional offenders cannot be deterred).

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

Cassius

In the context of terrorism, I would have to agree with you Steph. They are among the "emotional" offenders, and no amount of punishment would have a deterrent affect on them.

The reason is as we stated above -- they simply aren't thinking about getting caught, they're not thinking about what the punishment is. They already know that very very bad things are going to happen to them if they get caught, and they are willing to do it anyway, so what difference does it make if you change the punishment from very very bad to "very very very VERY bad!"? Answer: nothing. Because they don't believe they're going to get caught. Or at least are operating under the assumption that they won't be.

Phyxius

Personally, I don't, say, murder or rob people because I think it's morally wrong. That's how I live my life. According to my own morals. Which is why marijuana laws don't stop me from smoking it: I don't belive it's morally wrong. If there's a law against something I want to do, I find ways around it and am careful to not get caught. However, I'm sure there are people who find nothing morally wrong with robbing someone and the laws are the only thing that stops them.

You're saying fear of punishment is different from fear of getting caught. I don't see the difference. It only sucks to get caught because you get punished. It seems like you're saying if, say, murder was legal, the number of murders wouldn't rise. I highly doubt that. I've seen a sticker that says "The only reason some people are alive is because it's illegal to kill them" - I know it's a joke, but it has an amount of truth to it.

Phyxius

Heh.... Cassius said everything I did but better.

 

JTP

Well, as it relates to international terrorism I am more concerned with killing enough of them to make recruitment a difficult option. That coupled with a more attractive alternative (a free prosperous Iraq/Afghanistan) will have an effect IMO.

Internal, domestic US law is certainly screwed up. When a person gets more time for smuggling Marijuana than a child molester something is screwed up.

I agree that some crimes have no reasoning behind them. Enraged crazies who murder some family are not reasonable, and as such probably pay no attention to the consequences of their actions. So, in that situation the punishment did not deter the crime. That does not mean that those sickos wouldn't benefit from a quick bullet...

However, without any penalties for murder I can think of quite a few people who might look me up . So, in some cases the punishment is a deterrent.


Then again, rational people don't just murder somebody on a whim.

Cassius

Are you sure that wouldn't make recruitment easier?

That right there is what I like to see people saying. Positive reinforcement goes so much farther than negative reinforcement. Punishment IS a deterrent in my mind (to rational people, as long as the punishment isn't unreasonable), but a much better approach is instead of punishing them for doing something, reward them for not doing it. Give them an alternative. Make it so that they're only helping themselves by obeying the law.

NeoArcadian

Awe yes but a toothless crocodile can still break your legs with a whip of its tale.

What I am trying to say is that even if you get caught and there is no real punishment it is still out in the open that you do it. Now that is not a bad thing but it does kind of set you in a perceived stereo-typed group.

This group is seen as slackers, whether or not they have a good job and work hard, and are always thought to be retarded, whether or not they hold PhD’s or have a GED.

Besides that, yes, a large portion of people stop smoking pot or never start because of the risk. A good friend of mine was caught and got 6 months in jail, now he almost never smokes and he used to smoke like 3 times a day.

But when you look at it and think, "Hey, those 6 months spent in prison can never be gotten back," it makes you want to be a little more cautious next time you are smoking or carrying weed.

Besides, being a man named Bubba-Joe's nightly treat is not a good idea to ponder on. Makes you want to quit all together. But no one will so...

__________________
"Hammered like a blacksmith, Stoned like a mountain." ME.

JTP

I think both the carrot and the stick is required.

In the short term, yes I think killing extremists might ramp up their recruitment success. But that doesn't bother me, cause I would rather they flood into Iraq or Afghanistan and die, then successfully attack us or further their plottin in Europe. In the long term I think the swift killing terrorists/extremists will prove a deterrent (sp?).

sideoftheroad

You gotta remember, a lot of the people fighting in Iraq aren't Qaeda terrorists - to them they are fighting an occupying force, which is a pretty righteous cause in the heart of the defender.

Think about history: The Irish, Natives, Mayans... these people aren't seen as terrorists, but rather seen as a broken people trying to fend off an oppressor. But to the attackers, these people would be seen as terrorists, killing their boys abroad.

A dude blowing himself up and killing others around him because he doesn't like Americans is a terrorist - but what about a dude blowing himself up in his own country and killing a foreign army? Does this man not have an obligation to his fallen government and the right to defend his country, independence, and way of life - however poor we may, as a different culture, judge it as?

If a force invaded Canada, would I not like to believe I would fight until my last breath? Would I not succumb to the lowest of deeds to protect my country's identity? If the invaders called me a despicable terrorist, would that change my motives?

I guess it's all about perspective, and the fact that no one wants to think of their country as an invading force that instigated the war. Who's right? Who's wrong? Well, just like all the other conflicting nations in history, I guess all that matters is if this country is at peace and has a high standard of living 20, 50, 100 years from now...

But can ya justify it on such a long-term outlook? Can we really say slaughtering the Natives was justified because look at how good of a country we are right now?

(means to an end)