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.
Obviously we could fix our crime problems in the U.S. if we really wanted to, but it wouldn't be pretty. Regardless of what anyone thinks, facing the firing squad for a second felony offense would cleanse our major cities in less than a generation; however, the bleeding hearts would never go for something so cruel despite the fact that it would greatly improve society for the majority.
With our current demographics, do you believe there is any way that we could ever reduce the crime in our major cities to Singapore type levels without brutal or harsh penalties and loads of law enforcement?
No. Being under the constant watch of the government is not my idea of improving society.
What reason do you have to think offering the death penalty as the punishment for the second offense, regardless of what it is, would do anything to address crime rates? States that have the death penalty, by the way, also tend to have higher rates of violent crime. People suggest all the time that the death sentence will deter people, but evidence suggests otherwise.
But what you're doing is a problem I see in the right all the time. In their well-intentioned quest to resist political correctness, they set aside reason. They ignore the best options in favor of what is the least politically correct. This is why people like Trump. It doesn't matter how often he lies or says things that directly contradict his stated platform on his website; it's the rhetoric people like. It's never been about substance or policy; just not being politically correct.
When a problem is identified, the best thing to do, most would say, is to identify why it's a problem before acting. Why does crime exist? What makes areas with more crime different from other areas. Generally speaking, poverty and a lack of social stability are the key factors.
Look, here's what would probably happen if what you're suggesting is implemented. We could be lucky enough to see a decrease in crime eventually. But once the levels do decrease, people would start to question the decency of the 'second chance' policy you've proposed. Why are people convicted of non-violent felonies dying? At a certain point, people would simply argue that prison would be a more cost effective solution and your policy would eventually die out because the need no longer exists. But the policy was only effective when the problem persists. Once the policy is gone, the problem can return with no long term solution having been made to prevent it. This is best case scenario, by the way. I honestly don't think your policy would do nearly as much as you think it would. It would also cost an insane amount. As is, death row is costly and it really only applies to the nastiest of people. You really think we're going to stream line the process when 24 year old pot dealers are getting shot for the second offense?
What we'd need is to address crime before it happens. No, we will not see immediate results. ****ty truth is, I don't think immediate results can be achieved without violating people's rights. But as I said, there are usually two common factors that would lead to a rise in crime rates. Finding ways to address those ills would create lasting results. Killing people will not.
We would be executing hundreds of thousands of bad guys. That's hundreds of thousands of of less bad guys that will ever be able to commit a crime again, spread their genes, or influence other people that have the ability to commit serious crimes when manipulated. Eventually you would run out of bad guys. That's why I used the word cleanse.
Also states that have the death penalty don't have higher crime because of the death penalty. They have the death penalty because they have higher crime. They also don't execute enough people to really make a difference. In order to really drop crime with the death penalty you have kill all the bad guys, not just a few of them. Punishments are useless against hard core criminals. There are simply people that need to be removed from the gene pool. I agree with you on the fact that we need to address crime before it happens, and nothing is more effective than killing bad guys when it comes to preventing crime.
The rest of your post was silly. You sound like a good guy/girl, but people with your mentality is why we have all this crime. You're victimizing bad people unlike someone like myself that doesn't give two ****'s why these people became bad because I'm all about results.
Actually, most crime is associated with a narrow demographic, specifically the subset of individuals who are young, male, unmarried, not in school and not employed.
Uh; even here in "rural" Bullhead City, there ain't a whole lot of cars more than about 15 years old still on the road and, cars don't rust here either. There are more trucks before 2000 than cars but, even they're dropping off.
It was a Joke. Glad you got it. Should have put a smilly face I suppose.
You guys miss the whole point. The Governments of the cities WANT the crime. Crime is Big bucks for them and goes a long way in building their personal power. Without crime they would actually have to promise you something then do it.
Wouldn't cost as much in my idea of a prison. Bet it doesn't cost a lot in India or China. Maybe we should emulate Singapore?
When we deport illegal aliens we should save some money. Maybe we can imprison the criminal illegal aliens at Guantanamo seeing as how President Obama freed up some space.
Then there's the cost:
Oh, and drugs, incarcerate users in drug specialty prisons just for drug users. Take the users off the streets. Users not dealers commit more crime against innocent people. Who breaks into your home or your vehicle? Robs stores? Mugs people on the street? Steals from friends and family? Has vehicle accidents? Ruins families? Gives birth to drug addicted kids? Not dealers. Business will dry up for sellers. Rehab in prison.
1) Crime is not committed only by illegal immigrants. They are only a fraction.
2) Again, the TRUE TOTAL cost is not revealed. Your idea of prisons is only... your idea. In reality, the costs are much higher, if you consider everything. Be certain that the avarage citizen doesn't see a link between everyday laws and the taxes. They think it comes free.
3) The reason the number of inmates is significantly lower in all countries, is because there are less laws and less opportunities to break the law.
4) Singapore is a unique case. People gave up many freedoms to achieve that level of crime. Not sure Americans will like that. How many people in Singapore own firearms? Will Americans adopt the same here?
We would be executing hundreds of thousands of bad guys. That's hundreds of thousands of of less bad guys that will ever be able to commit a crime again, spread their genes, or influence other people that have the ability to commit serious crimes when manipulated. Eventually you would run out of bad guys. That's why I used the word cleanse.
Also states that have the death penalty don't have higher crime because of the death penalty. They have the death penalty because they have higher crime. They also don't execute enough people to really make a difference. In order to really drop crime with the death penalty you have kill all the bad guys, not just a few of them. Punishments are useless against hard core criminals. There are simply people that need to be removed from the gene pool. I agree with you on the fact that we need to address crime before it happens, and nothing is more effective than killing bad guys when it comes to preventing crime.
The rest of your post was silly. You sound like a good guy/girl, but people with your mentality is why we have all this crime. You're victimizing bad people unlike someone like myself that doesn't give two ****'s why these people became bad because I'm all about results.
You can't kill everyone who's ever going to commit a crime and pretend like you're saved the world. Crime will always exist so long as the reason I outlines exist. You can say "I don't give two ****s" about why they're committing crimes, but you'll never be able to effectively address the issue if they do.
Also, you're treating child rapists and drug users the same. Just so you know. I consider more worthy of the death penalty for thinking a single solution is acceptable for all felony charges, most of which are punished ineffectively to begin with.
You're "I don't care why" attitude is precisely why we have 2 million people in prisons here in the land of the free and the home of the too cowardly to actually face issues with any sort of intellectual thought.
If you legalize drugs, you have to supply the drugs too. The second you make drugs like heroin, cocaine, or addictive prescription drugs legal, the number of addicts will explode. When an addict with a physical addiction can't get their fix, they will break the law to get it. So there's that......
Now factor in the drugs that make people nuts like meth, angel dust,or crack . Even when they get their fix, they do crazy violent things.
Legalization of pot is about the only banned substance that would actually reduce crime in the long term.
Sure we would put some drug dealers out of business, but we would just be trading one problem for another with most hard drugs.
It's just like when they talk about end prohibition reduced gang crime in the 20's, but at the same time more people were killed in alcohol related accidents in just the first year after prohibition than all the gang wars that took place during prohibition combined. They simply traded one problem for another. Had they had they DUI laws and safer vehicles that we have today, it might have been a different story, but these are facts.
So let's have facilities where addicts can go to get their fix and be monitored for an overdose. There would be no law breaking and many overdoses would be prevented
So let's have facilities where addicts can go to get their fix and be monitored for an overdose. There would be no law breaking and many overdoses would be prevented
Throwing money at drug addicts is a waste of time. We shouldn't be putting them in prison or giving them free drugs. I would be ok with addicts being sent to rehab once, but a second trip = firing squad
Saudi Arabia has dealing with junkies and meth-heads down to a science. I didn't see one the entire time I was there
You can't kill everyone who's ever going to commit a crime and pretend like you're saved the world. Crime will always exist so long as the reason I outlines exist. You can say "I don't give two ****s" about why they're committing crimes, but you'll never be able to effectively address the issue if they do.
Also, you're treating child rapists and drug users the same. Just so you know. I consider more worthy of the death penalty for thinking a single solution is acceptable for all felony charges, most of which are punished ineffectively to begin with.
You're "I don't care why" attitude is precisely why we have 2 million people in prisons here in the land of the free and the home of the too cowardly to actually face issues with any sort of intellectual thought.
Honestly, a child rapist isn't as bad for society on the whole as a drug dealer. People that are in prison for felony drug charges are drug DEALERS not drug USERS. A child rapist can't destroy an entire neighborhood or cause the type of crime a meth dealer can.
Both should be executed for a second offense. I might even go with a first offense for a child rapist because that's not exactly something you can ever fix. It's sad that some people have a natural attraction to children, but they're too much of a threat to society to keep around outside of a cage. Maybe chemical castration?
I do believe a drug dealer can be rehabilitated, but I'm only willing to give them one warning before a death penalty. I also don't think they should be crowding our prisons up. I think we send them into rehabilitation programs. 2 year programs with job training. I also think they should be released with a clean record. Only the government should have access to a non-violent offenders criminal record after rehabilitation.
If they mess up again, we use the permanent solution to the problem.
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.
]
