Crime and Punishment

[BigT]

Anyway I'm not saying it does work, but you can't just say it doesn't without any evidence.

Good thing that we have lots of evidence then.

A few pages back I saw someone mention about it being cheaper, but again, this is not true. In America at least, it costs more to execute someone.

Also, no matter how much more 'humane' methods become, there is never anything humane about murder. There's also controversy about how 'humane' the current method is. A few states have changed from 3 injections to a huge dose of the first injection, as there is concerns the current method leaves victims conscious and can feel their muscles, lungs and heart failing, which as you can imagine, is not exactly humane.

I don't disagree with any of that.

 

[pluk]

Well done noonoo... I thought we finally moved on!

Anyone up for hyperthetical discussions regarding future reading technologies?

Just me. Damn!

The thing that needs to be proven is the 'mens rea', or 'guilty mind' of the suspect. At present that is proven with the evidence gathered showing the defendants account to be dishonest, or by the testimony of the defendant admitting guilt.

If the mens rea could be proven by other methods then that would be a solid way to convict someone. But it can't. If this hypothetical was bought into the real world the debate would be on the reliability of the system used to prove future events and the thoughts of the suspect. This of course is an impossibility, nothing will ever be able to do that in any way reliably.

So I concure...

I'm not sure there's anywhere to take it really.

 

[Jonathan]

Intention is, normally, extremely difficult to prove in criminal cases. If the defendant pleads guilty, then the intention part is there (apart from crimes of strict liability, which do not require intent, such as speeding and drink-driving), and the trial proceeds straight to sentencing. Ruth Ellis (the last woman hanged in the country) famously stated, when asked by Christmas Humphries QC what her intentions were when she shot her lover, the following words: "It's obvious when I shot him I intended to kill him." That was the only question she was asked by Mr Humphries, and the jury took just fourteen minutes to convict her. There was a TV programme on a few weeks ago about the development of the law in this country, and the presenter (criminal barrister Harry Potter) said that a few hundred years ago, you were lucky if your trial at the Old Bailey went on for longer than 15 minutes. A 15-minute trial for a murder? That is, by today's standards, very poor, and there is no way that justice could be done with an offence of that severity in such a short space of time. It completely defies logic and reasoning.

 

[delta79]

Fredward, I am up for a quick posting about it

The sci fi tech you talk about, may be used by more than law enforcement. It could be used to intercept someone before the crime, say it was going to be done due to mental health issue. then they could be give the help and support they need. So they don't go on to do the crime.

But them you got a paradox, if they don't do it then you would not see them do it on the equipment.

 

[Badgy]

The problem with any Crime and Punishment debate is that no matter where you stand on the "hang em high" and "let em loose" scale is that a logical solution is tried to be aplied to what is in essence a non logical problem.

If I consider myself as a case, then I wouldnt commit a murder, at all. No matter what the punishment was or even if there wasnt any. In fact I would find it hard to conceive that I would commit any type of crime (probabaly not counting speeding and that like). So in short for a world full of me there would need not be any punishments as I wouldnt commit the crimes. I wouldnt do a risk/reward assesment and judge if it was worth it.

Conversely there will be people at the other end of the scale who will commit the crimes no matter what the punishment is. So the punishment as a deterrent doesnt work as they dont consider the risk/reward assesment either.

In fact for punishment to really act as a deterrent then it has to far outweigh the crime. I once saw an Open University programme that discussed why it would be more effective to have the death penalty for that most heinous of crimes as parking on double yellow lines as opposed to murder.

I am against the death penalty as I do not thing that it does serve much (if any) as a deterrent. I would also suggest (but without gathering the data so its a hypothesis) that the states in the US where murder rates are higher even though they have the death penalty is that there also maybe other things going on too. What was the rate before the death penalty; availability of guns; drug/gang problems.

I can think of only 1 logical (not reasonable) arguement for having a death penalty. If the punishment for murder was life (meaning life) imprisonment then there is an eco-friendly arguement for having a death penalty as opposed to that person consuming resources without contributing to society. I doubt even the most hardline environmentalist would advocate this route, and it seriously starts us down the Logans Run sort of thinking.

 

[BarryZola]

I thought there were some really good points there Badgy.

 

[BigT]

I thought I would try and move the debate on and look at the psychology of punishments and the different types etc.

I think this article makes a few interesting balanced points, especially the relaionship between time when the crime is commited and the punishment is recieved.

http://psychology.about.com/od/operantc ... shment.htm

What are everyone thoughts about this, do you think we should have a faster judicial system like after last years riots or do you think the current system is about right?

 

[John]

I feel accuracy is a crucial part of any criminal justice system. As a result, we need to allow as much time as is necessary to gather evidence to build a case that maximises the chances of the right people being convicted. Whilst this process should be as quick as possible, I worry about the consequences of any attempt to speed things up, as it may lead to the collapse of trials on technicalities where corners have been cut during the investigation. Worse still, it could cause more false convictions as evidence is more likely to be missed.

 

[Poisson]

I feel accuracy is a crucial part of any criminal justice system. As a result, we need to allow as much time as is necessary to gather evidence to build a case that maximises the chances of the right people being convicted. Whilst this process should be as quick as possible, I worry about the consequences of any attempt to speed things up, as it may lead to the collapse of trials on technicalities where corners have been cut during the investigation. Worse still, it could cause more false convictions as evidence is more likely to be missed.

I have to agree with you John. It is a justice system and justice cannot be served if vital pieces of investigations and evidence have been missed due to trying to speed up the system.

 

[pluk]

The pressures we are put under to have people on short bail and then avoid re-bail is absurd and counter productive. It is not fair for people to have impending prosecutions hanging over them for excessive amounts of time but you are quite right to say investigations should not be rushed for obvious reasons.

Quick justice is possible though. 'Neighbourhood Resolutions' are becoming a more popular and accessible way of dealing with offenders and often with a better outcome for the victim too. An overview of how they work http://www.essex.police.uk/news_feature ... _from.aspx
Clearly for 'low level' crime, and not for repeat offenders, but it really is an excellent option for speedy and appropriate justice.

 

[Jonathan]

John's right. Justice needs to be seen to be done, and having quick trials doesn't always help this. Whilst I can understand why quick trial were commonplace after the riots last year, in the interests of justice, it didn't sit terribly well with me, if I'm honest. I visited the Magistrates Court in Truro back in February as part of an assignment for one of my modules, and the trials there were dealt with relatively quickly, but most of them were relatively simple affairs mainly involving guilty pleas, and thus I felt that they were dealt with appropriately and in the best interests of justice. Crown Court trials are almost always much more complicated, and take much longer. Trials in the Crown Court can last for about a day, but big murder trials can last for several weeks. It is this which ensures that justice can be seen to be done, as all the evidence necessary can be considered before a true verdict according to the evidence (quoting the oath which jurors swear before a trial starts) is given.

 

[Poisson]

pluk you obviously know more about Police paperwork then I do but would a separate set of staff in an office doing paperwork of crimes whilst the actual trained police are on the beat be advantageous? So crim gets brought in and all paperwork is completed by office staff with the info supplied by officers when the crim was brought in. More police would be available to fight crime then instead of fighting paperwork.

 

[Simon]

pluk you obviously know more about Police paperwork then I do but would a separate set of staff in an office doing paperwork of crimes whilst the actual trained police are on the beat be advantageous? So crim gets brought in and all paperwork is completed by office staff with the info supplied by officers when the crim was brought in. More police would be available to fight crime then instead of fighting paperwork.

Cue headlines about "taxpayers' money being WASTED on administrators and back office staff when what we need is more bobbies on the beat".

All governments are useless at effective policy making in criminal justice, because everything has to be run through the media asylum first, which basically means that they can't win.

>>Edit>> The link pluk provided comes into the area of "Restorative Justice", which, as he rightly says, is not suitable for everything, but I'm a bit more optimistic about it than he seems to be. Having criminals come face-to-face with victims and learning of the effect that their crime has had on real people has been shown to be very effective in preventing re-offending. I'd like to see an expansion - but sadly, it's a key area that the Mail and others can get their teeth into the government for "going soft" on offenders. The fact that it's effective would appear to be irrelevant. ???

 

[BigT]

pluk you obviously know more about Police paperwork then I do but would a separate set of staff in an office doing paperwork of crimes whilst the actual trained police are on the beat be advantageous? So crim gets brought in and all paperwork is completed by office staff with the info supplied by officers when the crim was brought in. More police would be available to fight crime then instead of fighting paperwork.

Cue headlines about "taxpayers' money being WASTED on administrators and back office staff when what we need is more bobbies on the beat".

All governments are useless at effective policy making in criminal justice, because everything has to be run through the media asylum first, which basically means that they can't win.

But wouldnt what Tom is saying put more police on the street if they are not doing the administation stuff.
I agree with all govenments being useless at making policy though because it is always for the short term so that they get re-elected.

 

[Simon]

But wouldnt what Tom is saying put more police on the street if they are not doing the administation stuff.
I agree with all govenments being useless at making policy though because it is always for the short term so that they get re-elected.

Indeed, but then you'd have back office staff + police on the beat which increases the overall cost of policing.

So what happens then is police offers are cut. Cue OUTRAGE.

So back office staff are sacked so more police can be hired. Cue GREAT HEADLINES.

Then police have to do more paperwork because there's no-one else to do it. Cue OUTRAGE.

And so it goes.

>>Edit Original said "police on the beach" I think my mind is elsewhere.

 

[Sam]

But wouldnt what Tom is saying put more police on the street if they are not doing the administation stuff.

More police on the streets is a bad thing. The 'bobbies on the beat' stuff is entirely a media fantasy, cooked up by the tabloids. Having police patrolling the streets (not counting special events and football matches and stuff) is a colossal waste of time and resources.

Nick Davies covers this in detail in his book 'Flat Earth News' about media distortion and lies. Think about it - in all your time walking the streets, have you ever actually witnessed a crime happening? Maybe once or twice, in a few decades.

Paying police to wander the streets is a waste of time that could be spent investigating actual crime or working on crime prevention. It's only effect is to reassure a nervous public, it doesn't actually reduce crime at all.

 

[Poisson]

The admin staff would be cheaper to employ than more officers and would do as BigT said, get more bobbies on the beat. And would make the headline Simon pointed out look stupid if the public had the intelligence to actually check the facts. But sadly most people don't The gov't need to grow a thicker skin to the headlines and do something for the long term greater good. The results would be noticed and people would stop complaining as a police presence works wonders.

 

[Poisson]

But wouldnt what Tom is saying put more police on the street if they are not doing the administation stuff.

More police on the streets is a bad thing. The 'bobbies on the beat' stuff is entirely a media fantasy, cooked up by the tabloids. Having police patrolling the streets (not counting special events and football matches and stuff) is a colossal waste of time and resources.

Nick Davies covers this in detail in his book 'Flat Earth News' about media distortion and lies. Think about it - in all your time walking the streets, have you ever actually witnessed a crime happening? Maybe once or twice, in a few decades.

Paying police to wander the streets is a waste of time that could be spent investigating actual crime or working on crime prevention. It's only effect is to reassure a nervous public, it doesn't actually reduce crime at all.

I prefer to think of it more as Police can be strategically placed to respond to crime then back at HQ pushing pens.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post

 

[Sam]

I prefer to think of it more as Police can be strategically placed to respond to crime then back at HQ pushing pens.

Oh yeah, all those criminals that get caught mid-crime by the police roughly... never.

What is this 'pushing pens' thing, is it a euphemism for examining evidence and actually solving crimes rather than just aimlessly wandering the streets?

 

[pluk]

But wouldnt what Tom is saying put more police on the street if they are not doing the administation stuff.

More police on the streets is a bad thing. The 'bobbies on the beat' stuff is entirely a media fantasy, cooked up by the tabloids. Having police patrolling the streets (not counting special events and football matches and stuff) is a colossal waste of time and resources.

Nick Davies covers this in detail in his book 'Flat Earth News' about media distortion and lies. Think about it - in all your time walking the streets, have you ever actually witnessed a crime happening? Maybe once or twice, in a few decades.

Paying police to wander the streets is a waste of time that could be spent investigating actual crime or working on crime prevention. It's only effect is to reassure a nervous public, it doesn't actually reduce crime at all.

The politest thing I can say to that is 'you have no idea'. As clearly you don't.

Oh yeah, all those criminals that get caught mid-crime by the police roughly... never.

Something I did, myself, twice on Tuesday. In a not atypical day.