Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[kandrathe]

...
Im really not even going to address what you said beyond the first "paragraph because your rejoined was to flawed to worry about anything built on it.
[right][snapback]109905[/snapback][/right]

This -- This is why we can't have anything nice in here! I thought this was a discussion topic rather than an exploration of logical fallacies. You seem abrasively dismissive here without ever facing the motes in your own eye. Let us not devolve into a debate class yelping "CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC!"Does anyone really enjoy that kind of debate if it's not for credit?

Do people break laws because they are sick or because they choose to. Should we try to repair people or should we punish them as a deterant and a way to take them out of society.  I Choose the second. You choose the first. Thats fair.

I disagree with you that excessive deterrence is a great way to reduce crime. Here is my reasoning, which you may or may not choose to address. Either way, I offer it up to the Lounge as fodder for thought.

First, because I don't believe that most criminals think they will be caught, or since their early success and forays with criminal excitement lead them to riskier behaviors. It could be that the psychology of some criminals is that their anti-social behavior is a plea for help, and they want someone to give them attention or intervene. Then again, about 80% of all reported crimes in the USA are forms of stealing, so maybe the disadvantaged are just looking for some equality by any means. Only about 10% of reported crimes are violent crimes (assault, rape, murder). An expected high level (50%) of the prison population are violent offenders, but an unusually high rate of 20-25% of the prison population are people being incarcerated for drug crimes (HRW: Incarcerated America). So perhaps deterrence doesn't work on drug addicts.

[sarcasm] Gee! Ya think? What is our image of a dope fiend? Emaciated due to lack of food, shooting up smack with a dirty needle in a rat infested crack den. Yah, they care about anything except their next score.[/sarcasm] You wouldn't believe what addicts will do to their own families to get the money to feed their habit. Anti-social? You bet. Deterrance candidate? No.

Second, because at some point the sentence does not fit the crime, and some peoples lives are more extremely affected to make an example to others. Too bad for the ones that got caught, were set up, or were just plain innocent and wrongly convicted. I've cited some examples here before, like the mother of 3 youngsters (3 yrs, 5 yrs, & 9 yrs old) who was set up and then testified against by her drug pusher boyfriend with the promise by prosecutors to knock time off his sentence. She's serving 10 years minimum as an example to other women to be more careful about your pusher boyfriends when they hide their cocaine in your house.

Third, extremism and injustice lead to social unrest and a resignation (or embracement) of incarceration as a social norm. We've spoken on the tyrrany of the majority here before, but at some point (as Doc has frequently indicated) the minority rightly will rise up in arms (so to speak). I would like to think that we all really want a justice system that is just, where punishments are commensurate to the crimes, and not cruel or unusual. Certainly there is a middle ground between no deterrence and "torture, then death to all transgressors". Finding that middle ground of fairness, in my book, is a requirement for social harmony.

Check out;
Wiki Chapter - Introduction to Sociology/Deviance

Near the end the chapter contains a section --

Social Control

Social control refers to the various means used by a society to bring its members back into line with cultural norms. There are two general types of social control:

    * formal social control refers to components of society that are designed for the resocialization of individuals who break formal rules; examples would include prisons and mental health institutions
    * informal social control refers to elements of society that are designed to reinforce informal cultural norms; examples might include parental reminders to children not to, well, pick their nose

Some researchers have outlined some of the motivations underlying the formal social control system. These motivations include:

    * retribution - some argue that people should pay for the crime they committed
    * deterrence - some argue that punishments, e.g., prison time, will prevent people from committing future crimes
    * rehabilitation - some argue that formal social controls should work to rehabilitate criminals, eventually turning them into productive members of society
    * societal protection - finally, some argue that the motivation for formal social controls is nothing more than removing the deviant members of society from the non-deviant members

You have been arguing that rehabilitation does not work, but it must work. Why? Because they wouldn't get away with spending so much money on it if they could not demonstrate some tangible success. Ok, its not 100%. You are focusing on the percentage that are not rehabilitated, but look at the positive side for a minute. Here are a bunch of the otherwise socially rejected that find a way return to society, and then are no longer a burden.

Now, can we do more to screen the potential re-offenders, or provide some better continual social maintenance? Sure, there is commitment, probation, treatment, half way houses, and other measures taken to insure the public is protected. The State I live in has a controversial sex offender program that could result in life long commitment to a facility for the criminally insane for those assessed to be too big a risk to society.

In 1965 Dennis Linehan pleaded guilty to abducting and strangling a 14-year-old girl from Shoreview, Minnesota. A decade later, just a week before Linehan was slated for a parole hearing, he escaped from prison, fled to Michigan, and sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl. He would eventually serve five years in a Michigan prison for that crime.  In 1994 the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed Linehan's indefinite commitment to the Minnesota Security Hospital in St. Peter. The court ruled that Ramsey County prosecutors had failed to prove that Linehan had "an utter lack of power" to control his sexual impulses, as required by a 1939 law, and ordered his release. 

The decision set off a wave of hysteria. No halfway house in the state would accept Linehan. The media transformed him into an icon of sexual deviance. He was ultimately "released" to a one-man residence on the grounds of the Stillwater prison and kept under round-the-clock surveillance by the Department of Corrections (DoC). The arrangement cost approximately $300,000 a year.  Amid the uproar, and during an election year, a special one-day session of the Legislature was called to amend the state's psychopathic-personality-commitment law. Within a year Linehan was back in St. Peter. He remains committed indefinitely.

The Linehan case presents an extreme example of a common problem. After serving their time, the vast majority of people who commit sex crimes are not detained as sexual predators, like Linehan, but are released into the community. And, simply put, nobody wants them.  Excerpt from There's no place like prison.

Life long ostracism may not be very rehabilitative, and in fact, I would venture it is not and probably detrimental. In the crime that this discussion is focused on, the majority of offenders were typically similiarly victimized as children. My argument here is that shame and guilt are already a part of the pathos of this crime, both against them and then perpetrated by them.

Now, in conclusion, I have small children and I do my best to protect them from the evils in society, and I sure would want to know that the guy living next door is not a recently released sociopath (whatever flavor) on probation. I also do not have a right to know every private little thing about my neighbor, and in this age, most public information is too obscured by volume to discover easily. I would rather think our trust should be that our society (and its systems and officials) are doing that careful balancing act of protecting the public's safety, while preserving our privacy and freedoms. They should notify us of any known public risks to our families, or suffer the wrath of angry lawsuits and voters. But, even though I trust that the government has our best interests at heart, I will still endeavor to stay aware of risks and be vigilent to protect my family from the dangers that do exist.

Hey, look! There is a guy sleeping in that car parked across the street...