criminal rights

[Sasquatch]

heavy punishment still does not deal with the main cause of crime, light punishment does.

That depends on what you consider "the main cause of crime". I see lack of respect for the law as one of the main causes of crime, and "heavy punishment", as you put it, would definitely take care of that.

[AkiraMakie]

okay enough about various parents.

saying that america has a high prison ratio due to more laws is false. look at gun crime for instance, this isn't caused by the ability to have guns, look at the gun ownership rates in canada and switzerland and look at their gun crime rates, and are there any doubts that shooting someone or shoving a gun under their nose is against the law? so if more laws and more guns can't be blamed for this crime what can? america is unique for this, and what is also unique about america? it's soceity. it's not it's mix of people, it's not it's richness, it's not it's poorness all, of these are visible in other countries. what is so unique about america is it's society and the rich-poor gap. and that must be looked at to find a cause of crime.

punishment does not stop crime. we've been using punishment for thousands of years no, has crime dropped? no it has risen. keep hitting something with a hammer does not always work. why not try something different? if it's not broken don't fix it, well the punishment is broken and has never worked.

you know what, this is a very true post. That is the problem with america and its crime. The inequality that we have. The gap between the rich and the poor is huge here in america. Thats what spawns alot of crime.

And tought penalties wont solve the problem because that may be a deterant for the man being punished not to do the crime again, but the next guy might not care about that. Tough punishments have never stopped crime, or even lessened it. There obviously needs to be another way. another system.

[fire_of_avalon]

However, countries with stricter laws and harsher punishments have LESS crime than do others that pander to "criminal rights".

They also have much smaller populations. Let's use Singapore as an example; http://www.citypopulation.de/Singapore.html . I'll round down and say four million. Four million people in Singapore, where cruel punishment is publically practiced. And yes, they have low rates of violent crime. But there are only four million of them.

There are three hundred million Americans.

In short, I don't really think public displays of cruel and unusual punishment really have any effect on the crime rate. I feel that the lower crime rate is misinterpreted as directly relating to punishment type when it REALLY relates directly to population, education, and over all balance in standard of living. All of which, I believe, Singapore has.

And I also don't understand the argument that, while we'll never be rid of crime, we should use almost criminal methods to punish that crime. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

And several of you have an awful tone towards your fellow forum members in this thread. Cut it out, please.

[Sasquatch]

I apologize, I didn't mean to say that they have less crime, I meant that they have a lower crime rate. That doesn't mean less crime, that means less percentages. Obviously many places would have less crime than the United States, seeing as they would have a lower population, but there's a difference in the numbers. Less crimes per capita, violent crimes, etc. etc.

I don't think "the gap between the rich and poor" has anything to do with crime, either. For one thing, there's a rather large Middle Class in America, plus the beauty of Capitalism ensures that people who work hard can move their way up, combined with the American freedom that protects every indivudual's rights to be able to go out and find a job, to work and make money. It's the people that don't want to work for their money that are committing the crimes, and that's not something to blame on the economics of the country, that's something to blame on those people.

[Cloud No.9]

to actually get back on the subject of criminal rights. i see it as this.

criminal = human and therefore has all the human rights gave to him by the eu, un, geneva and all other conventions and constitutions which apply.

to simply say some people deserve less rights than others is a slippery slope. to prejudice against a minority to such an extent that you say they no longer have human rights is coming very very close to edge of a very high cliff. at all times must basic human be given to anyone and to say this isn't true for some is sickening.

whether criminality is something to be punished or cured is still up for discussion but talk of removing limbs as punishment is totally reprehensible. and in what many believe to be the country with the height of freedom and justice shouldn't we be aiming higher than this?

[Sasquatch]

A minority? They're not a certain race or anything like that, they're criminals. Now, sure, they should be afforded basic human rights--if they're under the care of the government, they should be given BASIC, nutritional food, and sanitary living conditions. And also, criminals should not be treated extremely cruel--there are a lot of things that fall under "cruel and unusual punishment", but there are also a lot that DON'T.

Criminals get TV? Hell no. Maybe CNN or FOX News, maybe CSpan, that's it. Reading material? Research books, encyclopedias, novels. And current newspapers. No porn, no smut, no dirty magazines. Conjugal visits? No friggin way.