4 ms·

I mean there are places where removing a hand is still the standard, and it reduces but doesn't end crime.

• beat 8y ago
  I live in a community with a massive number of Somali refugees. Amputated hands for crime/whatever are a common sight among the older men. Somalia is one of the most dangerous places in the world. Over time, Europe has abolished the death penalty. They have the lowest murder rates in the history of civilization. In the US, there are wide variations between states for violent crime. Unsurprisingly, the states with the most draconian laws have the highest rates of crime. I've concluded that violent punishment does not reduce violent crime.
  • ticviking 8y ago
    Didn't mean to suggest that it does.
  • matkins 8y ago
    I don't think that comparison is fair. Europe is an advanced, civilised and homogeneous place; Somalia and the US are nothing like that (for different reasons)
    • beat 8y ago
      It's an absolutely fair comparison. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that all of Europe was unimaginably barbaric by modern standards. Literally millions of people were put to death in gruesome ways for crimes we'd consider trivial (or not even crimes) today. And yet, the murder rate dropped right along with the end of absurdly draconian punishment. Moreover, the violent crime rates for many parts of the US are no higher than in Europe. Coincidentally, those places tend to be the same states that have ended capital punishment. Now, I'm not drawing a causal relationship between draconian punishment and an increase in crime. I'm just saying there's demonstrably no relationship between "tough on crime" harsh sentencing and a decrease in crime. Fear of violent retribution by the State is not what stops people from committing crimes. We have to look at other reasons.