Peter Aitken wrote:

>> >> > Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white collar"
>> > crimes.
>> >>
>> >> Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals with the myth
>> > that
>> >> the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals with both
>> >> violent
>> > and
>> >> non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*.
>> >
>> > I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your "paper" sounds like
>> > a college freshman level polemic that, rather than impartially
> investigating
>> > an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you already believe in.
>>
>> So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research
>> couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's
>> quite a leap there, mate.
>
> I said nothing of the sort.

You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please explain what you
*did* mean by your statement. You explicitly suggest that it's not an
impartial paper, and that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal
opinions?

> If you want to engage in a serious
> conversation you ought to read a message - and understand it - before
> replying.

I do. But, you should take your own advice since you're jumping to great
conclusions based on nothing.

> If your research is so great let us see it so we can judge it.

"...so great..."?

>> > This
>> > is made quite clear by your statement "...myth that the fear of
> punishment
>> > works as a deterrent." You already believe that fear of punishment does
>> > not act as a deterrent so why should anyone take your paper seriously?
>>
>> Why do you think that because I don't believe that the fear of prison is
> an
>> effective deterrent automatically means that my paper is either laughable
>> or not to be taken seriously? It sounds like you've assumed *your*
>> conclusions concerning the paper without having read it.
>
> Again, I never said anything of the sort.

You said *precisely* that.

> Why do you keep putting words in
> my mouth? Is it that you have no response to what I actually said? Or
> can't you understand what I said?

Or is it that your statement was exactly what I described: that, based on
what you see my opinion to be, my paper can't possibly be anything more
than a biased polemic meant to support only my position. Is that not what
you wrote above?

>> > Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your thesis. Here are
>> > just two:
>> >
>> > 1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90 MPH with perfect
>> > safety yet I do not for fear of getting caught.
>>
>> Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the personal safety
>> factor and other elements involved?
>> IOW, is your not breaking the law
>> *solely* based on your fear of punishment or is it influenced by other,
>> possibly more important concerns, such as physical safety?
>
> Still again you did not read or understand what I said. Did you miss the
> "with perfect safety" part of my sentence?

There's no such thing as "perfect safety". And, you didn't answer my
question. Is the *only* reason you don't do it is the fear of getting
caught and sent to jail?

>> > 2) I have known several people who believed that using recreational
> drugs
>> > was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of imprisonment.
>>
>> Then in those cases they have been generally deterred. But, you're
>> talking on a very localized, anecdotal scale. *Generally* the fear of
>> prison is
> not
>> a deterrent and the proof of that is the growing prison population and
>> the lack of decrease in crime rates. How can you say something is a
>> general deterrent when nothing is generally being deterred?
>
> Yet again your argument lacks logic. The growing prison population is
> evidence (not proof) that the fear of prison is not *enough* of a
> deterrent to prevent crime or reduce it significantly - I have no argument
> with this.

Then you have no argument with me. I've stated that the belief that it's a
deterrent is a myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent"
supports that.

> But that's not the question and it's not what you have been
> claiming. Toa rgume that te fear of prison is not a deterrent, you would
> have to show that it is relatively rare for people to *not* committ crimes
> because of this fear - and you have not done so.

Your understanding of logic then is lacking. I don't have to prove a
negative. One can *not* prove a negative. How do you prove the fear of
prison is not a deterrent? You can't, not directly. Instead, you have to
indirectly show the claim that it *is* a deterrent to be unsupported by
fact. And here are (a few of) the facts: the prison population in 1990 was
4.1 million people. In 2002, the prison population was 6.7 million people.
That's a growth of 54%. In that same time period, the US population grew
from 248 million people to 281 million people. A growth of 13%. The prison
population (that's just the people who were *convicted*) grew at over *4
times* the population growth! How can you say the threat of prison is a
deterrent when the actual figures show it to *not* be so? If it were a
general deterrent, the worst case should have the prison population growth
be no more than the general population growth. But, it's not, it's 400%
greater!

You can continue to claim your anecdotal "it is a deterrent" line and for
you it's a specific deterrent (i.e., *you* won't commit crimes because you
fear going to prison). But it is not a *general* deterrent; it does not
prevent the majority from commiting crimes.

> As an analogy think of smoking and health. Your argument would be that
> because lots of people still smoke, fears of the health dangers do not
> serve as a general deterrent against smoking. You would totally overlook
> the millions of people who quit or never took it up because of the health
> dangers, just like you are ignoring all the people who gave up or never
> started committing crimes because of the fear of prison.

How can I ignore evidence not presented? Can you show me figures that
demonstrate that generally people are deterred from crime by the threat of
prison?

> No, I cannot
> prove how many peopoe there are,

That's what I've found as well.

> but because *you* are making the claim
> that fear of prison is not a deterrent, it is incumbent on you to show
> that they do not exist - otherwise your thesis is nonsense.

No, the onus is not on me to prove it. The onus is on the positive claimant,
the one who claims that it *is* a deterrent, to prove their position. The
default position (which I'm taking) is to reject the claim until such a
time as the positive claimant supports their assertion. And that's
precisely my thesis, that the threat of prison is not a deterrent.

>> > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes*
> does
>> > not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain
> silly.
>>
>> I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a
>> deterrent. You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find
> people
>> who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that
>> *is* deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the
>> fear of prison is a general deterrent.
>
> If that's just your opinion, fine, but to convince me and others you'll
> need to provide some numbers and facts.

Try looking at the Burea of Justic Statistics website for the growth rate of
the prison population
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/corr2tab.htm>. Then, go to the
US Census Bureau's website and look at the population growth for the same
period of time.