3 ms·

I think you dramatically underestimate the harshness of a “rational” system. According to one study 63% of violent crimes are committed by 1% of the population

I think you dramatically underestimate the harshness of a “rational” system. According to one study 63% of violent crimes are committed by 1% of the population (your mileage may vary but the order of magnitudes will be about the same). This implies that a person that commits any violent crime should be imprisoned for an extremely long time, because the odds are very good that they’ll assault, rape, rob or murder someone else. Said another way, with the policy of locking people up for a very very long time on a first (violent) offense, you would eliminate nearly half of all violent crime- and that’s not even counting the deterrent effect.

koprulusector 4y ago
First, to get it out of the way, there are some (serial killers come to mind) that modern psychology is unable to much about. However, of the 1% you mention, I imagine (without looking at any data to verify) many offenders may suffer from mental health issues or live in harsh socio-economic environment. It seems to me the best thing to do is address these two factors. Then no one need be locked up, and public resources can be put toward things positive for society rather than negative. As for the serial killer psychopath types.. I’m generally against capital punishment; hate the idea. But like, next to nothing can be done for these people today (I am not an expert, could be way off), and thus they pose a permanent threat to the people they’re around. I can’t think of a solution beyond some kind of exile, which seems silly or difficult to enforce. We could lock them up, but it seems like a waste of resources and overall a miserable way to live. So.. and I reserve the right to change my mind with the availability of more information, but perhaps it makes more sense to simply execute (in the most humane way possible) this very minuscule portion of the population when the offenses occur (specifically more than one near lethal assault or one or more lethal assault) and they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

koprulusector 4y ago

First, to get it out of the way, there are some (serial killers come to mind) that modern psychology is unable to much about. However, of the 1% you mention, I imagine (without looking at any data to verify) many offenders may suffer from mental health issues or live in harsh socio-economic environment. It seems to me the best thing to do is address these two factors. Then no one need be locked up, and public resources can be put toward things positive for society rather than negative. As for the serial killer psychopath types.. I’m generally against capital punishment; hate the idea. But like, next to nothing can be done for these people today (I am not an expert, could be way off), and thus they pose a permanent threat to the people they’re around. I can’t think of a solution beyond some kind of exile, which seems silly or difficult to enforce. We could lock them up, but it seems like a waste of resources and overall a miserable way to live. So.. and I reserve the right to change my mind with the availability of more information, but perhaps it makes more sense to simply execute (in the most humane way possible) this very minuscule portion of the population when the offenses occur (specifically more than one near lethal assault or one or more lethal assault) and they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?