Softening on Crime
-
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm
Softening on Crime
Why have punishments for crime softened in the west in last two or three centuries?
I have a few theories:
One is it was harder to catch criminals back then, so when you did catch them, you had to make an example of them.
Two is people had more of a sense of community, of togetherness, so when you transgressed the law, people were more hurt by it, more offended.
Three is life was poorer, nastier and shorter, people were harder, tougher, it took more to deter them from committing crimes, and they had a stronger stomach for violence, they weren't as apprehensive about dishing it out.
The king and the aristocracy made the laws, and they were often above them, so they had nothing to lose by making tough laws and everything to gain.
It was their own order they were maintaining, why break their own self serving order, and why not strengthen as much as possible?
We have more resources now, to both quarantine and rehabilitate people, back then they didn't have the means to take care of criminals, certainly not very well, so conditions were poorer, and punishments swift: amputation, execution.
Not only do we have more material resources, but we have more psychological ones at our disposal additionally, we have more effective drugs now for treating the sorts of mental illnesses that're thought to exacerbate violent or criminal tendencies, and we have more in the way of counselling and therapy in our inventory.
It was believed laws were made by or at least given the okay by the Gods, so you weren't just breaking a village's law, a town's or even just a state's, but the divine, absolute and objective law.
Laws have always changed, but probably more now more than ever, as the pace of society as a whole is changing, continually updating and supposedly upgrading, reassessing and evaluating its morals and values, its ethos, and so the law is viewed as more arbitrary now, questionable, and so we're more hesitant about punishing people severely.
We're also more familiar with how things are done in other countries, and even in other provinces or states, which makes laws seem even less immutable.
Females are having more of a say in politics, and there may be a tendency for them to be more lenient when doling out punishments, at least when the crime doesn't affect them personally.
While sometimes it can seem like it's worse than ever before, violent crime has been decreasing significantly for centuries, and so it may seem less necessary to root or stamp it out powerfully and speedily whenever and wherever it's found.
I have a few theories:
One is it was harder to catch criminals back then, so when you did catch them, you had to make an example of them.
Two is people had more of a sense of community, of togetherness, so when you transgressed the law, people were more hurt by it, more offended.
Three is life was poorer, nastier and shorter, people were harder, tougher, it took more to deter them from committing crimes, and they had a stronger stomach for violence, they weren't as apprehensive about dishing it out.
The king and the aristocracy made the laws, and they were often above them, so they had nothing to lose by making tough laws and everything to gain.
It was their own order they were maintaining, why break their own self serving order, and why not strengthen as much as possible?
We have more resources now, to both quarantine and rehabilitate people, back then they didn't have the means to take care of criminals, certainly not very well, so conditions were poorer, and punishments swift: amputation, execution.
Not only do we have more material resources, but we have more psychological ones at our disposal additionally, we have more effective drugs now for treating the sorts of mental illnesses that're thought to exacerbate violent or criminal tendencies, and we have more in the way of counselling and therapy in our inventory.
It was believed laws were made by or at least given the okay by the Gods, so you weren't just breaking a village's law, a town's or even just a state's, but the divine, absolute and objective law.
Laws have always changed, but probably more now more than ever, as the pace of society as a whole is changing, continually updating and supposedly upgrading, reassessing and evaluating its morals and values, its ethos, and so the law is viewed as more arbitrary now, questionable, and so we're more hesitant about punishing people severely.
We're also more familiar with how things are done in other countries, and even in other provinces or states, which makes laws seem even less immutable.
Females are having more of a say in politics, and there may be a tendency for them to be more lenient when doling out punishments, at least when the crime doesn't affect them personally.
While sometimes it can seem like it's worse than ever before, violent crime has been decreasing significantly for centuries, and so it may seem less necessary to root or stamp it out powerfully and speedily whenever and wherever it's found.
-
- Posts: 7349
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Softening on Crime
If somebody commits a crime, the government can take one of the following three actions:
Punishment
a) For revenge (serves no positive purpose).
b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence).
c) For deterrence (government exploitation).
Retribution
Unequal protection under the law.
Control
Positive government action designed to prevent recurrence of the crime or other criminal activity.
Punishment
a) For revenge (serves no positive purpose).
b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence).
c) For deterrence (government exploitation).
Retribution
Unequal protection under the law.
Control
Positive government action designed to prevent recurrence of the crime or other criminal activity.
-
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm
Re: Softening on Crime
That never occurred to me, that society doesn't beat and amputate people anymore, because it's been proven to be ineffective, as I believe punishment deters people from committing crimes.bobevenson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:15 pm If somebody commits a crime, the government can take one of the following three actions:
Punishment
a) For revenge (serves no positive purpose).
b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence).
c) For deterrence (government exploitation).
Retribution
Unequal protection under the law.
Control
Positive government action designed to prevent recurrence of the crime or other criminal activity.
Segregating people from society isn't just preventing them from causing harm, it's a form of punishment, cause it causes the offender pain and suffering, in most cases, and people are more-less calculative animals, we tend to be more apprehensive about doing things there are consequences for, really it's elementary.
-
- Posts: 7349
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Softening on Crime
Other than you, who mentioned segregation?Gloominary wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:16 pmSegregating people from society isn't just preventing them from causing harm...bobevenson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:15 pm If somebody commits a crime, the government can take one of the following three actions:
Punishment
a) For revenge (serves no positive purpose).
b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence).
c) For deterrence (government exploitation).
Retribution
Unequal protection under the law.
Control
Positive government action designed to prevent recurrence of the crime or other criminal activity.
- Sir-Sister-of-Suck
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am
Re: Softening on Crime
How so? The Scandinavian countries, which tend to focus on rehabilitation over capital punishment, have some of the lowest violent crime rates.bobevenson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:15 pm b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence)
-
- Posts: 7349
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Softening on Crime
Rehabilitation is not punishment.
- Sir-Sister-of-Suck
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am
Re: Softening on Crime
I didn't say it was, in fact I literally inferred it wasn't.
-
- Posts: 7349
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Softening on Crime
I said punishment to achieve rehabilitation is invalid, with which I assume you agree.
- Sir-Sister-of-Suck
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am
Re: Softening on Crime
Well the punishment we see in the US legal system is clearly not for the intention of rehabilitation. So you were trying to discover the intent of why the US prosecutes?
-
- Posts: 7349
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Softening on Crime
No, I'm saying that any form of punishment, including imprisonment, will not achieve rehabilitation.
- Sir-Sister-of-Suck
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am
Re: Softening on Crime
So you disagree with the sort of stuff we see in Scandinavia? Or do you not consider the way they prosecute their criminals 'punishment'?bobevenson wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:05 pm No, I'm saying that any form of punishment, including imprisonment, will not achieve rehabilitation.
-
- Posts: 7349
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Softening on Crime
I don't know anything about Scandinavia, but punishment of any kind is not the road to rehabilitation. They do have prisons there, don't they?