Why are LIBERALS soft on crime?

First, get rid of the victimless crime laws. Many of our laws outlaw things that become criminal offenses only because of the law, not because they actually, directly hurt anybody else.

There was a time, only a few decades ago, when simply being a homosexual was against the law. Was that law just?

Get rid of the laws against so-called vice. Legalize drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. and regulate them (Pure drugs, honest games, clean and protected women) and moderately tax them. That would eliminate a huge portion of the things that we put people in prison for.

Save law enforcement efforts for crimes that are actually wrong in and of themselves, such as murder, rape, robbery, assault, fraud, vandalism, etc.

Those criminals should be punished by corporeal punishment for first, possibly second offenses, unless the crime is severe.

If the person has committed a severe crime, or continues with lesser crimes, then they should be put into prison. The purpose is not so much punishment but to protect the public.

For crimes of the greatest severity, execution. The purpose to to permenantly protect the public. There is no parole from the grave.

 

This is the disclaimer you did not read...

Cautionary note about rankings

The ranks in some tables are based on estimates derived from a sample(s). Because of sampling and nonsampling errors associated with the estimates, the ranking of the estimates does not necessarily reflect the correct ranking of the unknown true values. Thus, caution should be used when making inferences or statements about the states' true values based on a ranking of the estimates. As an example, the estimated total (average, percent, ratio, etc.) for State A may be larger than the estimates for all other states. This does not necessarily mean that the true total (average, percent, ratio, etc.) for State A is larger than those for all other states. Such an inference typically depends on --among other factors-- the size of the difference(s) between the estimates in question, and the size of their associated standard errors.

In other tables, the ranks are based on a complete enumeration of the target population, or on complete administrative reporting from the population. In such cases, sampling is not used, and there is no sampling error component in the estimates. Still, care should still be taken when making inferences or statements based on the rankings. The table values may still exhibit nonsampling error originating from such sources as coverage problems (missing units or duplicates), nonresponse, misreporting, and others.

And actually DC had twice the number/100k as SC yet was not ranked because it isn't a state.

 

35% is more than enough to suggest a failing system.

What woud you say about a public school system with a 35% illiteracy rate amongst its graduates?

What would you say about an economy with a 35% unemployment rate?

Any penal system with a 35% recidivism rate is dysfunctional and NOT one to be emulated.

 

So you recommend more of the B. F. Skinner school of thought and the idea that the human mind is born a blank slate, to be written upon entirely by nurture, with nature being silent.

We do indeed have genetic predispositions. Anybody who has been around babies knows that. But even with such predispositions, we are still responsible for our actions.

You seem determined to provide an excuse for the criminal. If it is nurture, then he was badly nurtured so it isn't his fault. If it is genetic then he didn't have a choice so it isn't his fault.

A person in America can move into different social classes. But you can't do it overnight. You have to get an education, then a job, then a better job, etc. Do an excellent job. Along the way you have to avoid the vices of dissipation. IOW - Don't blow your resources on drugs, drink, cigarettes, loose women, gambling, etc. Delay gratification of desires until later. While you likely won't rise from poverty to super-rich, you will be able to climb to middle class.

I have watched the poor, both as a poor person and later from middle-class. In almost every circumstance the poor were holding themselves down. Nobody was holding them down with a boot on their throat. My own parents were poor because they lacked proper habits. Dad was satisfied with a seventh grade education, and never learned a skilled trade. That was his fault, not society's. The other poor families that I saw all had some similiar vice that held them back.

 

In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

A country with 67% illiteracy would not, surely, attempt to tell a country with 35% illiteracy how to teach children to read?

It might happen, of course, but only because the country with 67% illiteracy also has major problems processing numbers...

 

I would also go as far as removing most assaults from being considered a true crime. It is almost never just one person attacking another at random. It is usually two people who know each other who escalate the situation. Community based arbitration would be a more effective way handling these situations instead of wasting thousands of dollars to send someone to jail and getting out to no possibility of a job.

Also most vandalism is an economic crime and should be treated something like child support where putative damages and actual damages should be taken from the person's paycheck.

The goals should as many people out of jail as possible.

 

I agree. When I said assault, I was thinking of muggings. But you are right. I would not include the typical bar fight as an assault. It would be something lesser that would only merit a fine.

I would still include a few whacks with a cane, to make sure the point is driven home. It is likely that the vandal has committed other vandalism that he just didn't get caught for. He needs a strong lesson.

Agreed. Corporeal punishment doesn't mess up a person's life the way spending time in prison does. Punishments should be tailored to allowing the person to continue to work at a job.

 

No, I don't advocate 100% nurture. There are of course genetic predispositions but the vast majority of behaviour is influenced by environment. Let's say the genes could be expressed in a variety of ways but social norms and the like favour a particular direction.
I'm not trying to excuse the criminal I am merely stating that the conservative position of it's individual choice and that social factors make no difference is inconsistent.

It is now more difficult to move up social levels in America as judged by the decline in social mobility in America since the late 70's.

Now we have moved the question. Why did the poor have 'bad habits'?

 

I guess it is so simple that you missed the part that someone stealing and beating someone up is not acting rational.

Good lord, I have to laugh when I read such nonsense.

A better question would be; why is there air?

So if everyone’s income were the same there would be no more crime right?

 

It's perfectly rational and furthermore if it is successful the patterns will be reinforced.

Gravity.

I never said that, don't be ridicolous. I said that countries with lower levels on income inequality and higher levels of social mobility have lower crime rates. There is going to be a leveling out effect where other causes contribute to crime or indeed increasing equality leads to more crime.

 

I have highlighted the relevant part that renders your entire argument as moot and silly.

There is ONE reason for high crime rates; because the small percentages who commit crimes get continually released into society as a result of Librul feel-good intentions and the idiotic notion that one can "re-habilitate" the habitual criminal.

Crime is irrational and if one wishes to argue it, immoral. In other words, it entails BAD behavior. It is also true that a small percentage of the population commits crime. Studies have shown that if cities keep this small percentage off the street through various ways, all of which are abhorred by the A(Librul)CLU, crime drops dramatically.

It is not about income inequality; it is about society making excuses for bad behavior. Saudi Arabia gives former terrorists homes and enough income to live a lifetime on, yet the recidivism rate is very, very high; why do you think that is?

This notion that income inequality causes the irrational thinking that leads to criminal behavior is beyond laughable, it is more of the same Socialist Librul feel good BS that has defined a failed ideology as long as society has been civilized.

The REALITY is this; if you gave everyone enough money to live on for the rest of their lives in peace, the same percentage of irrational people would still commit crimes and I would venture to argue that suicide rates would increase dramatically.

 

You need to read some works about how truely work the prisons, and the death penalty.

And the factors of the criminality are social the majority, accept the reality.

 

You do realize that I could give a rat's buttocks what you think.

Now run along and try to impress some uninformed leftist of your superior intellect; I have better things to do than try to slap sense into a practical liberal Democrat, good lord I can’t help but laugh when I type that, who so obviously prefers to wallow in denial and misplaced arrogance.

Yep, this cutesy little picture would be something posted by an irrational Librul who claims they are a practical liberal Democrat, good lord I can’t help but laugh when I type that.

Carry on; I am sure you will have more irrational meaningless BS to spew here. Oh and don't forget to have some cheese with your little whine.

 

Some is, some isn't. Crime can absolutely be the most rationally self interested choice in lots of situations. If you grow up in a serious ghetto where the only people you know who are able to support themselves are drug dealers, becoming a drug dealer might well be the rational thing to do. With the inequality of wealth getting so wide as it is now that the people at the bottom are getting pushed right to the edge of starvation and have no real chance of ever making it into even the middle class, crime might be a rational option.

Can you share the study you have supporting that assertion? Or did you just make that up?

Republicans are the ones making excuses. They don't want to tackle the actual problems, so they pretend that empty rhetoric is all it takes... Like if they just blurt out "bootstraps" enough times then they don't have to actually try to improve anything in the country... Pretty lame IMO. You guys need to put some more effort in.

 

REALLY; beating up someone or raping them is a rational act? REALLY?

REALLY; we have air because there is gravity?

There was nothing ridiculous about my comments. Your entire premise is based on the notion that crime has a direct correlation to income inequality; therefore if we take it to the extreme, your premise then suggests that if everyone had the identical income, there would be no crime.

Of course you know that is false and therefore the premise suggesting that crime is highly correlated to income inequality is also false.

Pretending otherwise is mere denial. The FACT is that the reason for the correlation to income is due to the FACT that environment and education have a greater impact on the likelihood of violent crime.

The income disparity is merely a result of OTHER factors and focusing on it would lead to the wrong solution; which brings us back to why Libruls are weak on crime, they think like you do by coming up with incorrect premise for the reasons for criminal behavior.

 

It could easily be. Beating someone up may increase social status. Raping someone may satisfy pyschological and sexual pleasures. The difference between a criminal and the rest of us is the fact that the rest of us find legal means to do the above.

The gravity of the earth is what increases the escape velocity of the various gases in the Earth's atmosphere, thus preventing them from escaping. The moon has no atmosphere because it has less gravity.

That is why we have air (although the question is somewhat moot because humans have to have air otherwise we wouldn't have evolved). If you mean why does air exist? Then that's a seperate question.

No my argument does not suggest that complete inequality means no crime. It means that less inequality then that present would reduce crime. It may be a curved graph. You obviously have little knowledge of logic.

Consider driving a car on a motorway. Driving too fast -> increased danger. Driving too slow -> increased danger. There does however exist a medium level where the danger is minimised. If you don't like that analogy then take congestion.

Also I note how you have changed tactics and are now saying that rather than being completely personal responsibility it is now education and environment.

 

This is of course an absurd assertion and analogy; that one can improve one's situation and is rational by engaging in criminal behavior where the life expectancy is extremely low.

It is not rational to think that the only way to deal with crime is to engage in it. But then, this also explains why Libruls are weak on crime, they come with laughably dumb analogies like this to explain criminal behavior.

What Reduced Crime in New York City

"The police measure that most consistently reduces crime is the arrest rate… Felony arrest rates (except for motor vehicle thefts) rose 50 to 70 percent in the 1990s. When arrests of burglars increased 10 percent, the number of burglaries fell 2.7 to 3.2 percent. When the arrest rate of robbers rose 10 percent, the number of robberies fell 5.7 to 5.9 percent."

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html

Scottsdale crime rate drops 4%

Rodbell credited the drop in crime to a variety of programs, including one that targets repeat offenders.

"Getting career criminals off the street" has helped reduce major crimes, the police chief said.

Created in 2003, the program freed some investigators to focus on tracking thieves and other criminals who prey on Scottsdale.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2008/04/24/20080424sr-rodbell0425-ON.html

Crime figures falling in Peterborough
TARGETING known offenders and an increase in police foot patrols has sent crime figures tumbling in Peterborough.

The city’s police force has reduced crime levels between April and June by 3.2 per cent, down from 5,532 crimes in the same period last year to 5,355.

New figures released yesterday revealed that more criminals are being taken off the streets with almost a third of crimes being solved and the number of offenders being detained by police rising by 3.5 
per cent, from 2,493 in 2009 to 2,584 this year.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime_figures_falling_in_peterborough_1_666731

http://sociologyindex.com/philip_zimbardo.htm

Here is more information regarding the root causes of violent crime so that you can become even more informed; no need to thank me.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1995/03/BG1026nbsp-The-Real-Root-Causes-of-Violent-Crime

Can you share a study you have supporting this assertion? Of course you can't; it is merely your irrational OPINION about things you know little or nothing about.

Carry on.

 

I don't think you're following. Crime is bad, of course. But if you're in a really desperate situation then it sometimes is the rational, although not moral, choice. Sure, you risk your life by dealing drugs for example, but you also risk your life, and your kids lives, by living in those neighborhoods on public assistance.

Uh, the claim I was asking you to back up was that "making excuses" was the cause of crime. You were not able to find anything on that topic?

What you did post seems to undermine your position... It says that there are much higher crime rates in single parent families. Sure, that's true. Single parent families are one of the biggest problems with poverty. Not sure how you think that supports your side though...

The other ones are just completely unrelated to anything we're talking about as far as I can tell.. They seem to just be saying that more law enforcement leads to less crime. Duh. Nobody is arguing for less law enforcement... But law enforcement alone is just treating the symptom. You'll never solve the root problem by doing that.

You want a study showing that conservatives tend to prefer to just talk instead of actually tackling problems? Uh, you're my study. You just did it. That's what I replied to... If you think broken homes is the root problem, hey, that's cool. Tell me what policy you want to implement to fix it. Don't just point the finger and then quit. That's my point.

 

I think I've been more than clear with my opinion of the American penal system in regards to it's chronic failure at rehabilitation. Indeed, I have even suggested a remedy.

Are you suggesting that the mere fact of my being American disqualifies me from criticism of Sweden?

 

The internet is amazing isn't it?

Imagine if you went into a crowded space and shouted "Here's my opinion, isn't it great! Do you agree? No, shut up! I don't care what you think!". Kind but muscular men in white short-sleeved coats would escort you away.

But on the internet, it's quite acceptable behaviour.

 

I read it. I speed-read it, and took care as I thought appropriate.

What another poster claimed to be "the most liberal" state ranks twentieth on that table. The cautionary note seems to me to be saying that, in a worst case scenario where all of their assumptions prove to be unwarranted and all oftheir projections prove to be invalid, it might be nineteenth or twenty-first - an eventuality which would not detract from the thrust of my argument. Did you get the thrust of my argument, by the way? If the "most liberal states" do not dominate the top end of the crime-by-state ranking, and the "most conservative states" do not dominate the bottom end, then the whole argument - that "being in a liberal state" gets your garage repeatedly broken into by kids, your car repeatedly stolen and your families repeatedly molested and murdered - does not stand up the the most cursory examination.

This "cautionary note" is the sort of caveat any professional who works with data is familiar with. It does not mean "a whole team of us spent weeks producing this report but please bear in mind that we could have got results just as accurate by throwing darts at a map of America".

 

Please try to take this personally. You are wrong because you are wrong, because you are very, very wrong. You were very, very wrong before you attempted to wrap yourself in your flag, and you are just as wrong with a flag wrapped around you (only, a little more exasperating - well done you!).

The American penal system is the least effective in the whole world. It differs from the whole world in that it locks up more people, for longer, in more brutal conditions. You are suggesting that America should stop being so soft on prisoners.

There is an old army saying, "If a man dies when you hang him, keep hanging him until he gets used to it".

 

Here's another one arguing that statistics are simply not possible. There may be underreporting, so chaos and old night reign and only God can ever presume to guess at the prison populations of the world.

2007 Incarceration per 100,000

1 United States 738
2 Russia 611
3 St Kitts and Nevis 547
4 Turkmenistan 489
5 Cuba 487
6 Belize 487
7 Bahamas 462
8 Belarus 426
9 Dominica 419
10 Barbados 367
11 Panama 364
12 Ukraine 356
13 Suriname 356
14 Singapore 350
15 Botswana 348
16 Maldives 343
17 Kazakhstan 340
18 South Africa 335
19 Estonia 333
20 St. Vincent/Grenadines 312
21 Saint_Lucia 303
22 Trinidad & Tobago 296
23 Latvia 292
24 Kyrgyzstan 292
25 United Arab Emirates 288
26 Georgia 276
27 Mongolia 269
28 Namibia 267
29 Grenada 265
30 Tunisia 263

And that is all "moot" because the figures for e.g. Belarus or Tunisia may be underreported? Perhaps Turkmenistan has got twice as many prisons as anyone knows about, and should actually be in the lead?

So? So what if that, frankly impossible, stretch on the word "underreporting" were true in the real world? Other than America, do you see any OECD countries on that list, any NATO allies? Any other "Western" countries? Estonia and Latvia have probably drifted to the political West now, and if their democracies are a sham to cover up vast, underground prison systems then America might escape the charge of "being harsher than the Baltic States". Zipadeedoodah!

 

What about the people they just out and out kill. Permanent incarceration! Don't you think that would change some of those statistics?