balthazar wrote:Particularly addressing the economic and social conditions may indeed help reduce crime, but at what cost? I for one don't care for the idea of my tax dollars going to support someone who's too lazy to go out and get a job. Improving the conditions in communities that seem to breed criminals may indeed reduce the crime, but not many people are going to want to foot the bill for somebody who won't help themselves.
Saying that people who are poor and unemployed are "lazy" is a bit like saying everyone in such conditions who commits a crime is "evil." It lets you off the responsibility hook by painting the issue as unsolvable.
Will there always be people looking to game the social safety net? Of course, just like there will always be crime. But just because the problem isn't 100% solvable doesn't mean we throw our hands in the air and walk away.
Besides, you automatically assume I'm talking about massive government handouts. Actually, I'm talking about legalizing drugs, and using the tax revenue to create tax incentives for businesses to establish and/or locate in depressed neighborhoods. I'm talking about a reasonable minimum wage. I'm talking about national health care (which you can view as a handout if you like, but I see the current system as a handout to insurance companies). A social safety net is important, but it should be the last line of defense, not the first.
I would be interested in seeing some responsibility on the part of employers instead of their maniacal dedication to the bottom line. An increase in minimum wage would help, but few employers would be willing to commit to linking wages, even partially, to inflation.
No argument here. Besides that, you have the decimation of the honest working blue-collar wage by the mass exodus of industrial jobs overseas. Now all you have are crappy dead-end service jobs or skilled professional positions.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with some truth in sentencing. If someone is sentenced to 20 years, then lock him up for 20, not 5 or 10. I frequently read about people committing their fifth armed robbery, their third rape, their fourth drunk driving offense.
Sure, that's fine. I'm talking about lunacy like hard time for trivial marijuana possession, or an automatic life term for three minor felonies (is it really necessary to give someone a life sentence for two forged checks and a bar fight?).
Some time ago I recall reading a story about a man, a parolee, who broke into a house, demanded a gun, and then took the two people inside hostage. When the police stand-off was over, the man and his two hostages were dead. All the media could talk about was how none of it would have happened if there hadn't been a gun in the house. All I could think about was how none of it would have happened if he had been locked up for the full term of his sentence.
As Luke said, unless his term was life, when he was released was immaterial. For that matter, it also wouldn't have happened if the occupants weren't home that night. "What if" games are fun, but they make for bad sentencing laws.
While the goal of fines and imprisonment may be rehabilitation, they should be severe enough to be a deterrent, as well.
Which is fine if you assume that criminals are carefully weighing the consequences of their actions before they commit their crimes. "OK, I'm drunk off my ass, I just got laid off, and there's a gun in my glove box. I'm gonna steal that rich asshole's stuff! Oh, wait, they increased the minimum sentence for armed robbery from 15 to 20 years. I'd better not do it."
Rehabilitation is nice if it happens, but as far as I'm concerned, the goal of imprisonment is getting people who are a demonstrated danger to other people or other people's property out of circulation for an amount of time appropriate for the severity of the crime. Fines are appropriate for certain non-violent property crimes.
Anything that doesn't involve harm or imminent danger to another's person or property shouldn't be a crime.
Ryan
