Crime Do you agree that being soft on crime has SEVERE consequences?

Do you?

  • Yes

    Votes: 32 91.4%
  • No

    Votes: 3 8.6%

  • Total voters
    35
lol, we lock up such an insane number of people that if we are soft on crime than we are fucked in the head as a population
- But you guys have a lot of recidence. Theres maybe be a profit reason behind that?
 
That’s not what he said. I doubt anyone thinks 2.5 years was long enough. But one example doesn’t tilt the scales. How many people do you think went to prison the year he did? I’m sure you can find countless examples of people getting absurd sentences for relatively minor offenses.
- Brazil. Guy get arasted for rape. Gets out in less than two years, now if you stole a chicken at a supermarket, you get forgotten inside a prison. It's pretty common here. Minor crimes get a severe punishment and violent crimes no.

Now if you're rich you can comit any crime.
 
- Brazil. Guy get arasted for rape. Gets out in less than two years, now if you stole a chicken at a supermarket, you get forgotten inside a prison. It's pretty common here. Minor crimes get a severe punishment and violent crimes no.

Now if you're rich you can comit any crime.
Sounds similar to here then
 
If you don't kill a rapist, or detain him for life, and free him, of course he is likely to rape again. It's not a surprise.

Disgusting.
 
So in your opinion that number suggests that America is awesome at solving crime... And nothing else?
Yeah pretty much. Compared to most countries.
America has a murder solve rate of 50%, one of the lowest in the developed world. Canada, for example, has 75%. If Canada is 50% better at solving, why are only 107 per 100,000
Yay Canada. They are awesome also. They definitely got their own growing problems though.
Canadians incarcerated as opposed to 541 per 100,000 in the United States?
A huge problem is the lengthy sentences in the US. Really inflates the incarceration totals.
Some of these numbers may be off a little as I'm dealing with a mix of murder stats and general crime stats, but the general trend is overwhelming.

Brazil currently has a national average of 48%, but they've had much lower. Right now they're about the same as you.
“48%” Brazil what??? I assure you the solve/capture rate of Brazil is NOT anywhere near 48%.
 
Yes it does have severe consequences. But the worst is when they also go after people who defend themselves or others. That is the kind of thing that destroys a free and prosperous society.
 
America has 5% of the world population and 25% of incarcerated citizens.

You have problems, but being "soft on crime" isn't one of them.

Incarceration means nothing if the criminal gets out after a couple of months. That's what "soft on crime" is referring to.

You even have the context of the initial post that talks about a 2.5 year sentence for rape. How do you not understand this concept?
 
Incarceration means nothing if the criminal gets out after a couple of months. That's what "soft on crime" is referring to.

You even have the context of the initial post that talks about a 2.5 year sentence for rape. How do you not understand this concept?

Tell you what.

Come back with the name of the guy, what he was charged with, what he was convicted of, and what determined his sentence.

The average sentence for rape is now longer than that for manslaughter. Why do you figure he only got 2.5 years? Do you know?
 
The USA is 100% soft when it comes to child molestation and assaults, and it has very severe life altering consequences. Almost like a lot of the cops and judges are of the same ilk, so they look after each other and try and give predators minimal jail time.

I said it in another thread, but some college baseball player was arrested for sexually assaulting a girl from when she was 7 to 12 years old. He's doing MAYBE 6 months jail time, and DOESN'T have to register as a sex offender. Makes no fucking sense at all.
 
Yes seems like an easy answer but this country is too obsessed with just punishing people and few care about the "why". They also dont care about reducing recidivism or rehabilitation, nor do they care about all the barriers in place that just make it likely that a lot of people coming out of prison will fall back into the same criminal activity, or worse.

A lot of rich/famous people have done far worse than poor people in prison but through money, lawyers and influence they experience little to no consequences.
 
"Why did he rape?" would be a retarded question though.
I agree, but taking the most extreme singular example of a crime where the why doesnt really matter (as it doesnt with most violent crimes) or is self-evident is also a retarded point. The why Im referring to isnt simply why a singular person committed a crime, its the prevalence of a specific crime and where.

Figuring out solutions to the "why" is not simply a means of justifying crimes, understanding the why should lead to means to reduce the crime itself or punish those abusing lax laws (and/or change them)

Ex: Why is there only one state (AZ) where it is illegal to sell used catalytic converters? If it was also illegal to purchase used ones in the state where the crime is most prevalent (CA) and every state that bordered it, would that do a better job of reducing the crime than say, a death sentence for anyone caught stealing one?

If you remove the profit motivation, the crime doesn't happen. If criminals know they will be harshly punished for getting caught but its still profitable, there is a good chance they are just going to be far more dangerous as they know what awaits them if they are caught, someone is still victimized, and the crime still happens.
 
Back
Top