Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or does it make crime worse? When you throw a person in jail for a small crime, they might come out so emotionally damaged they will be worse than they were before, and might even commit a murder or something. Isn't that kind of counter-active? Does being tough on crime actually increase violence? Even the concept of having a death penalty sends out the message that sometimes killing and violence are okay as long as the end justifies the means. America is very tough on crime but it seems to help little, as we're much more violent than we should be considering our affluence. Saudi Arabia is also tough on crime and is supposedly very safe, though I suggest this has more to do with their very different and deeply religious culture and don't forget that domestic violence is rampant there so even if it's safe to walk down the street, being in your own home is another matter...
I think tough-on-crime policies are popular in America because industry likes them because prison is profitable and the common person likes them because they live in fear of being victimized and take satisfaction in seeing people get their comeuppance. I actually think prison should only be for people who are highly dangerous and likely to re-offend (like a serial killer), in most cases the criminal should be required to do some kind of restitution, especially if the crime was non-violent. Another punishment might be some kind of 'marking', like maybe a scarlet letter of sorts, though to prevent vigilantism there should be a high punishment for assaulting a 'marked' person. I think it's more humane and effective than jail.
Or does it make crime worse? When you throw a person in jail for a small crime, they might come out so emotionally damaged they will be worse than they were before, and might even commit a murder or something. Isn't that kind of counter-active? Does being tough on crime actually increase violence? Even the concept of having a death penalty sends out the message that sometimes killing and violence are okay as long as the end justifies the means. America is very tough on crime but it seems to help little, as we're much more violent than we should be considering our affluence. Saudi Arabia is also tough on crime and is supposedly very safe, though I suggest this has more to do with their very different and deeply religious culture and don't forget that domestic violence is rampant there so even if it's safe to walk down the street, being in your own home is another matter...
Well, a slap on the wrist for murder will encourage more murders. Asking rapists to sign an apology letter as punishment, will only sell more ink pens and encourage more rapes.
Well, a slap on the wrist for murder will encourage more murders. Asking rapists to sign an apology letter as punishment, will only sell more ink pens and encourage more rapes.
I mean like actual restitution, like hard work not just an apology. Kill someone, and you have to work to support their family financially, rape a girl and you have to pay for her kid, and in both cases be banished from the community your victim lives in. And if the person is highly dangerous, yes they should be institutionalized somehow. But, Keeping someone in jail for life is unrealistic unless they are a serial killer and destroying people in my opinion is unacceptable.
As someone who works in corrections I've seen first hand the system could use some reform. I think we need to do a better job of identifying true threats and who just made a mistake. However for the all the bluster about being "tough on crime" there is plenty of leniency in the system.
Or does it make crime worse? When you throw a person in jail for a small crime, they might come out so emotionally damaged they will be worse than they were before, and might even commit a murder or something. Isn't that kind of counter-active? Does being tough on crime actually increase violence? Even the concept of having a death penalty sends out the message that sometimes killing and violence are okay as long as the end justifies the means. America is very tough on crime but it seems to help little, as we're much more violent than we should be considering our affluence. Saudi Arabia is also tough on crime and is supposedly very safe, though I suggest this has more to do with their very different and deeply religious culture and don't forget that domestic violence is rampant there so even if it's safe to walk down the street, being in your own home is another matter...
It's a lot harder to commit a crime from prison (and if you do, most likely it's being committed against another inmate).
So, yes - tough on crime policies do work.
As for Saudi Arabia, I bet domestic violence is legal over there, so that wouldn't count as a crime.
What sort of small crimes are we talking about that we are tough on that causes a person to become a hardened criminal?
Probably drug possession... But that's getting less common, many jurisdiction are moving towards a rehabilitation oriented model.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
