Deterring Crime

What Extreme Punishment, It don't exist!

Published on January 7, 2005 By msladydeath In Politics

Extreme Punishment, what a joke! The only extreme punishment in the US would be the Death Penalty, and the odds of a murderer actually being A)Put on death row and B)Actually being executed are soo low, it's not worth the thought.

Extreme Punishment wouldn't be 3 square meals a day, bed with clean linens and a laundry service, cable TV, Utilities, "yard privileges" such as gyms, basketball courts, etc. All for free! Oh yea, I forgot the free college education and/or GED, and job training, health care, all free, then on top of all that, get an allowance. And Low security Federal prisons are even nicer to live in.

Now, deter that, rather hard to do. Why do murderers and rapists and drug dealers and such need a gym, or cable TV, or a TV at all for that matter, They can get their news from the radio piped over the intercom system for all I care. Not going to deter crime when they can live better in prison than on the streets for starters.

Hey if I rob the liqueur store, I might go to prison, oh well. Now try this, remove the non essential elements from the prisons for starters (the food can taste like crewel) and bring in some corporal punishment! The Nuns had it right smacking unruly kids knuckles with a ruler. It's obvious that rehabilitation don't work for to many (not saying all) so why bother? Why give a murderer a college degree? what purpose does it serve? Why do Convicts need porno mags? And why do I have to pay for stupid appeals? No new evidence, no appeal (giant period).

There is nothing wrong with "Tent City", pink boxer shorts and giant vacancy signs, or even chain gangs.

"Yet if the prisoners housed in Arizona's Maricopa County tent city jails are complaining, they have some good reasons. At that facility the incarcerated are fed only two meals a day, with green bologna sometimes appearing on the menu. They are quartered in outdoor tents under sweltering conditions, and they sleep on cots which lack pillows. They work on chain gangs. And they wear pink underwear. " http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=tentcity

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has a good thing going down there, I know I would sure think twice if I knew I was going someplace like that. Especially since I live in Nebraska.

But also, since we are talking about crime prevention, Health and Human services needs to get their act together, in an effort to prevent children from become offenders, namely abused/neglected children and children being brought up in a criminal family. What would also help this would be no more children visiting their incarcerated parents (ouch). Children raised with criminals, learn the ways of criminals, and since crime does sometimes pay, and prison is easier than earning a living...... you can draw your own conclusions.

Summary, smack em with switches once month for the duration of their sentence and see if they want to come back.

Comments (Page 2)

JE0192

on Jan 08, 2005

The first study actually concurs with my point. Exactly like Mathiesson said in 1990, the certainty of being caught is much more important than the severity of the sentence. Just like the study you pointed to concludes by saying:

"The odds of imprisonment for a serious offense increased in the late 1980s and 1990s as legislators responded to the public's "enough is enough" attitude. The result has been a decreasing national crime rate. To build on this trend, we must continue raising the odds of imprisonment, making crime less attractive for potential criminals."

Although it does point out the fact that severity also increased during the period, it doesn’t show any tangible correlation between severity and deterrence. The emphasis is put on the odds of being caught (that’s why they don’t mention the severity in the conclusion).

Here's a cute little quote from Michael Radelet (University of Colorado): "If you want to deter people from leaning on your stove, medium heat works just as well as high heat."

I don't see the relevance of the second study.

I was referring to the deterrence offered by the severity of the punishment (like in my first post)...

iamheather

on Jan 08, 2005

I was referring to the deterrence offered by the severity of the punishment (like in my first post)...

Well, I wasn't. I was referring to the purpose of prison, not the severity.

msladydeath

on Jan 08, 2005

I don't see the relevance of the second study.I was referring to the deterrence offered by the severity of the punishment (like in my first post)...

the second study refers to detering crime through legalizing and licensing of concealed weapons. It has to do with the fear factor. If you fear you will be shot while jacking a car, your not likely to steal the car.

The study you pointed out has valid points, as do most independant studies on the subject, but for starters, if your not afraid of prison, then your not as afraid to get cought, especially if your life will be better and easier while inside. Just look at the repeat offenders. More convicts than you would expect, probably recomit so that they can go back, so they don't have to worry about making money, where they will sleep tonight, where they will find food.

Increasing the likely hood of being caught works well with first time offenders, but not with reoffenders, 70+% reoffend.

Nebraskawoman

on Jan 31, 2005

I have to agree with msladydeath. Some of these prisoners have it better in jail than they did on the street. I would welcome more people like Joe Arapaio to be in charge of our prisons. I mean come on what use does cable tv have in rehabilitation or deterence? Alot of criminals have even been able to run their drug operations from prison so how is this limiting freedom. The only change I see in some cases is a change in location.

greggbert

on Jan 31, 2005

Holy crap don't you know anyone who has ever worked in a prison before? Hell, have you tried babysitting a kid for a week with no TV?

You ask a prison guard whether or not its easier or harder to control inmates when they don't have access to televison. Time they spend watching TV is time that they don't spend beating the crap out of each other or making the guards lives miserable. Inmates who are giving and recieving ass kickings every day, (I'm guessing here), are probably pretty tough to rehabilitate.

Most prison guards will tell you that TV is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to pacify inmates that exists. I have heard this from many County Sherriff's officers in California, who have to work as prison guards for their first few years.

As for ex-convicts that report that prison is easier than freedom, that's just a load of bung. They're either lying or trying to be tough.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 31, 2005

No threat of punishment will (or can) ever be a deterence to anyone except those who probably wouldn't commit the crime anyway. Why? Because people don't commit crimes with getting caught as part of the plan. It's kind of like the saying about how the "locked door keeps the honest person honest, the thief will get in anyway."

Getting caught, and therefore incarcerated, only happens when something goes wrong. Now, most of us figure that if we pulled a B & E or something, we probably wouldn't get away with it anyway, so the threat of incarceration works. On the other hand, most of us figure that as long as we don't go 10 or more MPH over the speed limit, we're not going to get pulled over.. so we do.

Justice for the convicted shouldn't be decided with "deterence" in mind, it should be decided with "justice" in mind. The one thing that both the "punishment" and "rehabilitation" sides of the issue seem to leave out of the discussion.

drmiler

on Jan 31, 2005

Reply #20 By: greggbert - 1/31/2005 3:33:59 PM
I have to agree with msladydeath. Some of these prisoners have it better in jail than they did on the street. I would welcome more people like Joe Arapaio to be in charge of our prisons. I mean come on what use does cable tv have in rehabilitation or deterence?

Holy crap don't you know anyone who has ever worked in a prison before? Hell, have you tried babysitting a kid for a week with no TV?

You ask a prison guard whether or not its easier or harder to control inmates when they don't have access to televison. Time they spend watching TV is time that they don't spend beating the crap out of each other or making the guards lives miserable. Inmates who are giving and recieving ass kickings every day, (I'm guessing here), are probably pretty tough to rehabilitate.

Most prison guards will tell you that TV is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to pacify inmates that exists. I have heard this from many County Sherriff's officers in California, who have to work as prison guards for their first few years.

As for ex-convicts that report that prison is easier than freedom, that's just a load of bung. They're either lying or trying to be tough.

Are *you* a prison guard? Because my *best* friend is a sargent at California State Prison, Centinela (CEN). And he says the exact opposite of what your saying.

mooondoggie

on Jan 10, 2009

How to deter crime. I've given this a lot of thought and yes when I lived in Phoenix I remember tent city and Sherrif Joe A. Pink underwear, green bologna sandwiches, chain gangs. Saw prisoners all the time around the city doing working tasks that no one in their "right mind" would want to do, so let the morons do it. Makes sense to me.

My idea is to build one cell and put that cell on every Main St. in America. A sign over the door says "This will be your new home when you commit crime." See where OJ, Mike Vick, and Scott Peterson live. "Your parents will be so proud of you that you finally have your own place".

maudlin27

on Jan 11, 2009

the certainty of being caught is much more important than the severity of the sentence

Still means increasing the punishment has a deterrance effect. It just isn't so great as increasing the level of detection. It can be cheaper though (although it depends on how cushy you want to make your prisons). It is an interesting result though, since it suggests that criminals are risk lovers, even though they may be risk averse in other areas.

Anyway I think it's important that prison both is, and more importantly is seen to be a 'nasty' place - in that it provides the barest of necessities, but by no means is comfortable. So, no TV, for example. However educational programs are useful since they will help with rehabilitation which is also important - prison should act both to try and deter people from committing the crime in the first place, and also to then try and reduce the likelihood of them reoffending when they're released (and the vast majority of criminals will be released, even sadly those on a 'life' sentence). However removing most luxuries (with maybe a few basic ones such as 'slightly nicer food' to reward good behaviour) would hopefully help cut the cost of housing a prisoner, and at the same time increase the deterrance of prison. The danger though is that it could risk increasing lawlessness in prison, requiring increased security staff (or worse conditions) which wouldn't be desirable - e.g. I wouldn't be happy with a petty thief being maimed while in prison as a result of unlawfulness. So there is some sort of compromise to be made - maybe it does work out that tv would be a good thing after all due to the positive effect of calming inmates and it's low cost outweighing the reduced deterrance of prison (even though personally I'd see it as a luxury too far).

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!