Australia's Courts are too soft.

[Mossberg Shotty]

I hope you realize the mindset of zero accountability that you're pushing is exactly what criminals thrive on. If there aren't any consequences, why the hell not, right? Without consequences, the whole system would fall apart. But that's not to say that I think Australia needs a harsher penal system (I can't really comment on it, as I've never been there) but that's a dangerous way of thinking.

Well, I don't go about killing people, because if I killed a person, I'd feel like shit. And I hate feeling like shit. What I mean to say here, the consequences don't necessarily have to be delivered by an external agent.

And no, I'm not saying all such external agents should be abolished. That'd be stupid. Just saying that, well, I don't need the law to tell me what is and isn't wrong. I generally go by the rule of thumb that whatever I'd take issue with when done to me, would likely be wrong if I did it to someone else.

And we're working on the assumption that all criminals have your code of ethics? Because they don't. If that was the case, we would never have serial killers, because they would feel guilty after just the first time.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see your logic here. Saying that someone's guilt will be their punishment, when they clearly have no remorse, doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Vegosiux]

And we're working on the assumption that all criminals have your code of ethics? Because they don't. If that was the case, we would never have serial killers, because they would feel guilty after just the first time.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see your logic here. Saying that someone's guilt will be their punishment, when they clearly have no remorse, doesn't make a lot of sense.

My point is that absence of harsh punishment does not automatically result in a universal case of zero accountability, which you seemed to argue. Now I either misunderstood that point of yours, or you cast a blanket that was a little too wide.

I mean, obviously there are individuals that won't be deterred by anything for one reason or the other, but I'd say a large chunk of people would still consider themselves accountable at least to themselves.

 

[chikusho]

It does not need to work as a deterant. it needs to work as punishment.

That's an extremely unproductive and backwards way of thinking.

I hope you realize the mindset of zero accountability that you're pushing is exactly what criminals thrive on.

Citation needed.

If there aren't any consequences, why the hell not, right? Without consequences, the whole system would fall apart.

I've never said that there shouldn't be consequences. Just that the current consequences are backwards and self-serving.

You don't need a citation to understand that, just a bit of common sense. Simply demanding facts about that which is self evident doesn't really make a compelling argument.

And self-serving? Yes, because the tax-payers get SO much out of this deal, don't they? They get to pay thousand a year to keep the people who caused them harm detained. And sometimes even paying for them to get a college degree while in jail while they can't even afford an education for themselves. But that's all part of the rehabilitation, right?

Yes, you do need a citation to understand that. How can it be "common sense" when there's no evidence to back it up?
There is no place where a zero accountability mind-set has made criminals thrive.

Yes, tax-payers get plenty out of creating a stable, productive citizen that is going to live in their community. Compare that to paying for an increasingly hardened and violent criminal being forged under harsh, dehumanizing conditions, only to be released back into society without skills, education or hope. As well as a black dot on his record that will make people automatically prejudiced towards him, and which closes most doors that could possibly lead to a stable life.

There is no correlation with harsher punishments and reduced crime. There is plenty of correlation with rehabilitation and reduced chance of repeat offenses.
http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/23/1/144.short

So again.. Citation needed.

And we're working on the assumption that all criminals have your code of ethics? Because they don't. If that was the case, we would never have serial killers, because they would feel guilty after just the first time.

The thing is though, serial killers are but a miniscule fraction of convicted murderers.
http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial Killer Information Center/Serial Killer Statistics.pdf
And the overwhelming majority of murderers are not repeat offenders.
http://nj.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Among_Homicide_Offenders.pdf

You are assuming that criminals are rationally weighing the long term cost of incarceration against the short term gain of committing a crime. This is almost never the case.

 

[Something Amyss]

She is not crazy. the fact that she was jailed and not sent to mental institution mean that the court decided she was not crazy.

That's a rather weird way of looking at it. Do you often throw yourself upon the infallibility of the court?

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

And we're working on the assumption that all criminals have your code of ethics? Because they don't. If that was the case, we would never have serial killers, because they would feel guilty after just the first time.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see your logic here. Saying that someone's guilt will be their punishment, when they clearly have no remorse, doesn't make a lot of sense.

My point is that absence of harsh punishment does not automatically result in a universal case of zero accountability, which you seemed to argue. Now I either misunderstood that point of yours, or you cast a blanket that was a little too wide.

I mean, obviously there are individuals that won't be deterred by anything for one reason or the other, but I'd say a large chunk of people would still consider themselves accountable at least to themselves.

I hate to say this, but that sounds a bit naïve, I think you're giving people way too much credit. You're clearly a man of conscience, and I can appreciate that, but that "large chunk of people" probably isn't as big as you think it is. I mean, look at the number of people who commit crimes with laws and consequences in place. Strip those things away, and that figure is likely to triple. We like to think that people are civil and nice, but if the government wasn't holding their leash, they're capable of terrible things. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but that's the way I see it.

Yes, you do need a citation to understand that. How can it be "common sense" when there's no evidence to back it up?
There is no place where a zero accountability mind-set has made criminals thrive.

The very definition of common sense is that it's generally universal, it shouldn't have to be explained. But you clearly need it, so I'll indulge you. If you've ever spoken to a criminal (I'm guessing you haven't, seeing how you're so fond of them) their mantra is basically as follows: "It's not my fault, I'm just a product of society." What's that? Not taking responsibility for your actions? Not being accountable, in other words?

Naturally, if you don't feel responsible for something, you can pretty much do whatever you want with impunity. Such is the logic of most criminals. Think of it this way, most people who break the law do so because they'll get away with it. They don't think there will be any consequences. And if there weren't you can bet you're gonna see a spike in crime. But you insist that there's no correlation there?

As far as what tax-payers get out of the deal, that's a pretty flimsy argument. Best case (and I mean BEST case) you get a completely rehabilitated law-abiding citizen. Is that worth the thousands people have spent on him? Is it fair that the people who have always obeyed the laws get to provide his food, boarding, education and rehabilitation, even though they may not have those things and were in fact the ones who were trespassed against by this hypothetical person? And just for reference, a perfect citizen isn't that great. There are probably quite a few who live near you, and you don't even notice them. So I'm not convinced of how invaluable these rehab success stories are, but you clearly are, for whatever reason. You wouldn't support the next homeless person you see by moving him into your house, paying for his utilities and education, but that's the same principle. But it's fine to do the same with prisoners, as long as it's someone else's money, am I right?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you've never been the victim of a crime. That's not an insult, that's the way it should be. But it also means that you lack perspective. There have to be repercussions crimes like rape and murder, that's what justice is. Without it, there's no balance, though I might be getting into philosophical territory here.

Asking for citations like a college professor doesn't make a very compelling argument, but since you insist. Read the first two paragraphs I wrote again, and then apply them to the next news story about crime you see. Enjoy your citations.

 

[MCerberus]

Oh boy, utilitarianism vs retribution in a legal context.
Let's just get it out of the way: both ways of thinking have serious flaws. Namely, moral luck and "leaving the whole world blind."

Utilitarian deterrence doesn't actually work the way it's described in an insanely large amount of cases. Simply put, criminals are of a state of mind that puts them outside of the social contract and are more prone to not be logical to begin with. Meanwhile, there's no possible way to compensate for the loss of life due to this sick act.

I will go out on a limb and say this though: Seriously Australia? Killing and torturing people for no reason is like the ONE thing most ethics systems can actually agree on. This is the best you could do?

 

[chikusho]

I hate to say this, but that sounds a bit naïve, I think you're giving people way too much credit. You're clearly a man of conscience, and I can appreciate that, but that "large chunk of people" probably isn't as big as you think it is. I mean, look at the number of people who commit crimes with laws and consequences in place. Strip those things away, and that figure is likely to triple. We like to think that people are civil and nice, but if the government wasn't holding their leash, they're capable of terrible things. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but that's the way I see it.

Actually, most people are good.
People who get convicted of crimes are in a minority, and for many that conviction will be the one thing they do wrong their entire lives.
Also, you're lumping together all crime as being coldly calculated and planned, which is not the reality of the matter. There are crimes out of desperation, misunderstandings, mistakes, unjust laws, technicality convictions, false accusations, being raised into criminal behaviour because their society provides no other option, etc. It's not nearly as black and white as you're making it out to be.

Yes, you do need a citation to understand that. How can it be "common sense" when there's no evidence to back it up?
There is no place where a zero accountability mind-set has made criminals thrive.

The very definition of common sense is that it's generally universal, it shouldn't have to be explained. But you clearly need it, so I'll indulge you. If you've ever spoken to a criminal (I'm guessing you haven't, seeing how you're so fond of them) their mantra is basically as follows: "It's not my fault, I'm just a product of society." What's that? Not taking responsibility for your actions? Not being accountable, in other words?

Yes, and I think it's common sense that giving a person a reason to live and get straight, and the tools to do so, will drastically increase his or her chances of following through. But apparently it isn't as common as I would've thought.
Again, how can it be common sense without evidence to back it up? At one point in time, it was common sense that the earth was the center of the galaxy.

Also, thank you for providing an excellent quote that supports my point. If someone truly thinks that they are "A product of society," the best way to make him change his ways is for society to show him that it's got his back and help him out.

Naturally, if you don't feel responsible for something, you can pretty much do whatever you want with impunity. Such is the logic of most criminals. Think of it this way, most people who break the law do so because they'll get away with it. They don't think there will be any consequences. And if there weren't you can bet you're gonna see a spike in crime. But you insist that there's no correlation there?

Citation needed.
How can you possibly know what "most criminals" think?
Also, if we assume that what you're saying is true; If someone thinks they can "get away" with something, that obviously means they know that they are doing something wrong. And, since there _are_ legal consequences, obviously the particulars of their situation outweighs the cost of any repercussions. In which case, punishment is absolutely useless.

If this is such "common sense," how come the data contradicts it?

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1147698?uid=3738984&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102593284207
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jlawp13&div=15&id=&page=
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/83/2/284/

As far as what tax-payers get out of the deal, that's a pretty flimsy argument. Best case (and I mean BEST case) you get a completely rehabilitated law-abiding citizen. Is that worth the thousands people have spent on him?

Considering the thousands that are already being spent, a resounding yes.
Btw, you're using "BEST case" as if that is somehow unlikely. Why is that?

Is it fair that the people who have always obeyed the laws get to provide his food, boarding, education and rehabilitation, even though they may not have those things and were in fact the ones who were trespassed against by this hypothetical person?

Yes, as a society we pool our resources to invest in necessary infrastructure that makes it a better place to live. What's your point?

And just for reference, a perfect citizen isn't that great. There are probably quite a few who live near you, and you don't even notice them. So I'm not convinced of how invaluable these rehab success stories are, but you clearly are, for whatever reason. You wouldn't support the next homeless person you see by moving him into your house, paying for his utilities and education, but that's the same principle. But it's fine to do the same with prisoners, as long as it's someone else's money, am I right?

Which is better for a society do you think:
1. A lawful person who provides for himself and contributes to society, or 2. A person who does not.
It's in everyones best interest to create as many of the first example and as few of the sexond example as possible.
Dehumanizing, lifelong punishment does the opposite.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you've never been the victim of a crime. That's not an insult, that's the way it should be. But it also means that you lack perspective. There have to be repercussions crimes like rape and murder, that's what justice is. Without it, there's no balance, though I might be getting into philosophical territory here.

I have been the victim of a crime, but it is not a necessary perspective. In fact, it's a harmful perspective, since the victim of a crime has his or her judgement clouded by pain, fear and thoughts of vengeance.
This is exactly why sentencing and punishment is supposed to be handled by a neutral party.

Asking for citations like a college professor doesn't make a very compelling argument, but since you insist. Read the first two paragraphs I wrote again, and then apply them to the next news story about crime you see. Enjoy your citations.

And providing arguments based only in assumptions make for very unconvincing points and a fairly shitty discussion.

 

[Sniperyeti]

The very definition of common sense is that it's generally universal, it shouldn't have to be explained. But you clearly need it, so I'll indulge you. If you've ever spoken to a criminal (I'm guessing you haven't, seeing how you're so fond of them) their mantra is basically as follows: "It's not my fault, I'm just a product of society." What's that? Not taking responsibility for your actions? Not being accountable, in other words?

I'm afraid 'common sense' tends to be more about societal norms and upbringing than anything else (e.g. is it common sense that marriage must be between a man and a woman? Depends where you live and who you associate with). Tacking that onto an assertion doesn't really add much to your argument, that's what Chikusho is getting at.

Assertions which others may not agree with tend to be a bit of a thing in your argument though, I imagine that's why Chikusho is spraying 'citations needed' at you:

Naturally, if you don't feel responsible for something, you can pretty much do whatever you want with impunity. Such is the logic of most criminals.

Think of it this way, most people who break the law do so because they'll get away with it. They don't think there will be any consequences.

And if there weren't you can bet you're gonna see a spike in crime.

- - -

As far as what tax-payers get out of the deal, that's a pretty flimsy argument. Best case (and I mean BEST case) you get a completely rehabilitated law-abiding citizen. Is that worth the thousands people have spent on him? Is it fair that the people who have always obeyed the laws get to provide his food, boarding, education and rehabilitation, even though they may not have those things and were in fact the ones who were trespassed against by this hypothetical person? And just for reference, a perfect citizen isn't that great. There are probably quite a few who live near you, and you don't even notice them. So I'm not convinced of how invaluable these rehab success stories are, but you clearly are, for whatever reason. You wouldn't support the next homeless person you see by moving him into your house, paying for his utilities and education, but that's the same principle. But it's fine to do the same with prisoners, as long as it's someone else's money, am I right?

The issue here is that prisoners are assumed to have a higher chance to reoffend than the average population (though I recall there's some data as to actual reoffending rates depending on the type of crime that disputes this). Unfair as it may intuitively appear, the Criminal Justice System is going to put $1000 towards the offender to stop him reoffending, rather than $1000 towards a 'worthy' family who have never offended and will never offend. That's because the purpose here is to prevent crime. If your point is that the welfare system has less money to throw around than the CJS, then that's a political budgeting problem.

When you have a potential recidivist offender, what are your options if the goal is to lower crime rates? Either keep him out of the population (long term imprisonment or death), or ensure that he will not reoffend (individual deterrence and rehabilitation). Given how expensive long term imprisonment is, and the general distaste for the death penalty, surely you can see how rehabilitation is considered a valuable goal for the system? If you want an example of what happens when sentences of imprisonment run out of control with no adequate 'output' scheme (reintegration or rehabilitation), check out what's been happening in California recently.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-usa-california-prisons-idUSBRE97R00P20130828

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you've never been the victim of a crime. That's not an insult, that's the way it should be. But it also means that you lack perspective. There have to be repercussions crimes like rape and murder, that's what justice is. Without it, there's no balance, though I might be getting into philosophical territory here.

Asking for citations like a college professor doesn't make a very compelling argument, but since you insist. Read the first two paragraphs I wrote again, and then apply them to the next news story about crime you see. Enjoy your citations.

Aaaand here you've kind of moved into a personal attack of sorts and are saying his argument lacks weight, not because of its force but because of his (entirely assumed) lack of victimisation. Not a good look mate.

 

[Strazdas]

She is not crazy. the fact that she was jailed and not sent to mental institution mean that the court decided she was not crazy.

That's a rather weird way of looking at it. Do you often throw yourself upon the infallibility of the court?

When on one hadn we got no proof of her insanity, and on the other we got court going over the evidence and thinking that sane is the better way to decribe, yeah. courts are far from infallible, but as we got no evidence to the contrary...

 

[Something Amyss]

She is not crazy. the fact that she was jailed and not sent to mental institution mean that the court decided she was not crazy.

That's a rather weird way of looking at it. Do you often throw yourself upon the infallibility of the court?

When on one hadn we got no proof of her insanity, and on the other we got court going over the evidence and thinking that sane is the better way to decribe, yeah. courts are far from infallible, but as we got no evidence to the contrary...

Except, evidently, professional opinion.

I'd also note that she plead guilty in the first place, which sort of undercuts your argument. But hey, I suppose next we'll hear how pleadnig guilty means you must be guilty, and there's no way a mentally ill person would do that....

 

[Strazdas]

She is not crazy. the fact that she was jailed and not sent to mental institution mean that the court decided she was not crazy.

That's a rather weird way of looking at it. Do you often throw yourself upon the infallibility of the court?

When on one hadn we got no proof of her insanity, and on the other we got court going over the evidence and thinking that sane is the better way to decribe, yeah. courts are far from infallible, but as we got no evidence to the contrary...

Except, evidently, professional opinion.

I'd also note that she plead guilty in the first place, which sort of undercuts your argument. But hey, I suppose next we'll hear how pleadnig guilty means you must be guilty, and there's no way a mentally ill person would do that....

What professional stated that she is insane?
And her pkleading guilty or not does not have anything to do with her mental state.

 

[Talvrae]

Here another one in French about Canadian justice, a pedophole who got 6 years for having abused a child for 10 years: http://www.journaldequebec.com/2013/08/29/six-ans-a-un-agresseur-sexuel