5 ms·

What would you recommend the penalty be for the actual person who committed the crime, rather than the state?

by DanAndersen 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago
What does punishing them accomplish?
- nhaehnle 11y ago
  A big part of the point of punishment is to act as a deterrent. 99 years of prison may be excessive, but there has to be some negative consequence for the person who breaks a law, otherwise there's no reason not to.
- pen2l 11y ago
  This is strange to hear from you (only strange and unexpected, not.. bad). You've said in the past that only violent criminals should be imprisoned. What does punishing them accomplish? Are the two really so vastly different? If we continue down this line, when does punishment ever accomplish anything? And what does it accomplish? I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts, or whatever you were going for in the question you just pose now.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I don't think either deterrance nor rehabilitation, the traditional justifications for criminal punishment, really work. I think the value of criminal punishment is that it reinforces social norms among all those who observe or know about the punishment (that and retribution for the victims). With regards to violent crimes, imprisonment reinforces the social norm that the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. I don't think that justification is as important when we're talking about what's essentially a commercial crime. It doesn't even implicate personal safety in the same way as say burglary. These cattle are just assets on a balance sheet.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The traditional justifications are incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence, and the thing you describe as working after you say deterrence doesn't is actually a combination if general deterrence andand the exemplary element of retribution. And justification of criminal punishment is always important, because you can't evaluate a policy without doing so in context of the purpose it is intended to serve.
    - ajmurmann 11y ago
      Locking away violent criminals also has the benefit that the general public will be safe from the violent criminal during the incarceration.
    - pen2l 11y ago
      > I don't think either deterrance nor rehabilitation, the traditional justifications for criminal punishment, really work. I agree that punishment most probably does not end up in rehabilitation. And I think that should be obvious to everyone, locking up people in unsafe areas, where others too are ill in mind, where most are folks who've had poor lives and poor fortunes, it only reinforces the wrong ideals and norms. The Scandinavian model of rehabilitation probably works better: putting people in safe homes with counselors who show love instead of hate, and a general treatment of dignity (one that they were not shown before -- indeed almost all violent criminals come from broken homes, almost all criminals never had a positive and loving authority figure to show them the way). Why not break the cycle and treat them with respect? > I don't think that justification is as important when we're talking about what's essentially a commercial crime. It doesn't even implicate personal safety in the same way as say burglary. I don't like that distinction of violent crimes and non-violent crimes, it's too easy, it makes it seem like the non-violent crimes are not bad enough. You know how michaelochurch used to equate managers who gave references to attempted murder or something to that effect? That was of course silly, but I can actually kind of appreciate the logic in that... in today's society these actions essentially make or break a person's life. Not in terms of life and death, but it makes the difference of a life of dignity and work to possible homelessness and a complete inability to provide for your family. And further down in this continuum, there's financial crimes, there's the SV crimes (inculcating bullshit ideas by way of crafty advertising, . These actions don't cause immediate physical harm, but overtime they rot lives of so many in an insidiously disgusting way.
- verteu 11y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_%28legal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_%28legal%29
EliRivers 11y ago
Well, given the value of the stolen goods in question ( http://www.theeagle.com/landandlivestockpost/in-today-s-market-how-much-is-that-cow-worth/article_41d2532a-309c-5bb5-9c31-fda1ddb82281.html http://www.theeagle.com/landandlivestockpost/in-today-s-mark... seems to indicate that a year ago, two thousand dollars was reasonable if historically high), a reasonable penalty would be restitution and depending on history perhaps a suspended sentence with compulsory community service, or failing that a few months in prison. Although it would have to be one of those prisons you only get in foreign countries where the aim is to make everyone better off by turning criminals into lawful, valuable citizens :( Ten years is just plain fucking stupid, and costs the state an absolute fortune.
- pyre 11y ago
  > Ten years is just plain fucking stupid, and costs the state an absolute fortune. But makes for-profits prison corporations a fortune!
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- bluedino 11y ago
  >> Ten years is just plain fucking stupid, and costs the state an absolute fortune. Maybe to you. But to other cattle ranchers, if this guy is free and running stealing cattle all the time, it looks like a pretty good idea to keep in in a cage for 10 years.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Why should the law favor cattle ranchers (who can cheaply protect their property by branding) over other owners of property worth low thousands of dollars? Here's (probably) the relevant laws: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.31.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.31.... http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.12.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.12.htm Theft of up to $20,000, assuming no priors, is limited to a penalty of 2 years (I've elided a bunch of details, click through to read them, skim for the relevant portions, but I'm pretty sure stealing $10,000 cash would result in a prison sentence of 2 years...).

What would you recommend the penalty be for the actual person who committed the crime, rather than the state?

rayiner 11y ago

What does punishing them accomplish?

nhaehnle 11y ago
A big part of the point of punishment is to act as a deterrent. 99 years of prison may be excessive, but there has to be some negative consequence for the person who breaks a law, otherwise there's no reason not to.
pen2l 11y ago
This is strange to hear from you (only strange and unexpected, not.. bad). You've said in the past that only violent criminals should be imprisoned. What does punishing them accomplish? Are the two really so vastly different? If we continue down this line, when does punishment ever accomplish anything? And what does it accomplish? I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts, or whatever you were going for in the question you just pose now.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I don't think either deterrance nor rehabilitation, the traditional justifications for criminal punishment, really work. I think the value of criminal punishment is that it reinforces social norms among all those who observe or know about the punishment (that and retribution for the victims). With regards to violent crimes, imprisonment reinforces the social norm that the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. I don't think that justification is as important when we're talking about what's essentially a commercial crime. It doesn't even implicate personal safety in the same way as say burglary. These cattle are just assets on a balance sheet.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The traditional justifications are incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence, and the thing you describe as working after you say deterrence doesn't is actually a combination if general deterrence andand the exemplary element of retribution. And justification of criminal punishment is always important, because you can't evaluate a policy without doing so in context of the purpose it is intended to serve.
  - ajmurmann 11y ago
    Locking away violent criminals also has the benefit that the general public will be safe from the violent criminal during the incarceration.
  - pen2l 11y ago
    > I don't think either deterrance nor rehabilitation, the traditional justifications for criminal punishment, really work. I agree that punishment most probably does not end up in rehabilitation. And I think that should be obvious to everyone, locking up people in unsafe areas, where others too are ill in mind, where most are folks who've had poor lives and poor fortunes, it only reinforces the wrong ideals and norms. The Scandinavian model of rehabilitation probably works better: putting people in safe homes with counselors who show love instead of hate, and a general treatment of dignity (one that they were not shown before -- indeed almost all violent criminals come from broken homes, almost all criminals never had a positive and loving authority figure to show them the way). Why not break the cycle and treat them with respect? > I don't think that justification is as important when we're talking about what's essentially a commercial crime. It doesn't even implicate personal safety in the same way as say burglary. I don't like that distinction of violent crimes and non-violent crimes, it's too easy, it makes it seem like the non-violent crimes are not bad enough. You know how michaelochurch used to equate managers who gave references to attempted murder or something to that effect? That was of course silly, but I can actually kind of appreciate the logic in that... in today's society these actions essentially make or break a person's life. Not in terms of life and death, but it makes the difference of a life of dignity and work to possible homelessness and a complete inability to provide for your family. And further down in this continuum, there's financial crimes, there's the SV crimes (inculcating bullshit ideas by way of crafty advertising, . These actions don't cause immediate physical harm, but overtime they rot lives of so many in an insidiously disgusting way.
verteu 11y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_%28legal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_%28legal%29

EliRivers 11y ago

Well, given the value of the stolen goods in question ( http://www.theeagle.com/landandlivestockpost/in-today-s-market-how-much-is-that-cow-worth/article_41d2532a-309c-5bb5-9c31-fda1ddb82281.html http://www.theeagle.com/landandlivestockpost/in-today-s-mark... seems to indicate that a year ago, two thousand dollars was reasonable if historically high), a reasonable penalty would be restitution and depending on history perhaps a suspended sentence with compulsory community service, or failing that a few months in prison. Although it would have to be one of those prisons you only get in foreign countries where the aim is to make everyone better off by turning criminals into lawful, valuable citizens :( Ten years is just plain fucking stupid, and costs the state an absolute fortune.

pyre 11y ago
> Ten years is just plain fucking stupid, and costs the state an absolute fortune. But makes for-profits prison corporations a fortune!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bluedino 11y ago
>> Ten years is just plain fucking stupid, and costs the state an absolute fortune. Maybe to you. But to other cattle ranchers, if this guy is free and running stealing cattle all the time, it looks like a pretty good idea to keep in in a cage for 10 years.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Why should the law favor cattle ranchers (who can cheaply protect their property by branding) over other owners of property worth low thousands of dollars? Here's (probably) the relevant laws: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.31.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.31.... http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.12.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.12.htm Theft of up to $20,000, assuming no priors, is limited to a penalty of 2 years (I've elided a bunch of details, click through to read them, skim for the relevant portions, but I'm pretty sure stealing $10,000 cash would result in a prison sentence of 2 years...).