 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message > Financial crime? Take a portion of her earnings for X years as a fine. That would be a greater burden on the poor than the wealthy. Some of the poor commit financial crimes to survive. OK, so we take 5% of their welfare checks. If a billionaire loses 90% of their wealth, they are still living pretty good by most standards of middle class America. Just does not seem all that fair. > > > If I could rob banks instead of > > working for a living, I'd risk a $50 fine to get caught. I'd not risk > > anything that has jail time attached to it. > > Armed robbery *is* a violent crime and as such would require jail time since > the person is a demonstrated *physical threat* to others. You can rob banks and not be armed. So as long as I give some of the money bak I'm off the hook? > > Jail for non-violent criminals is barbarism. Why *not* just flog them? OK, I'll go for the flogging. (oh, I think that was one of them rhetorcial thingies) > > I've already stated it: make the punishment fit the crime. Violent crimes > get definite prison time to protect society. Non-violent crimes get fines, > community service, etc. Agree to a point. The wealthy tend to have it easy even though they are doing community service. Instead of reporting to prison, they get to give speeches at schools to tell our youth not to follow in their path. Then they have the chauffer take them home and the cook has a nice dinner on the table for them. Maybe if they lived for some period of time next door to Joe Sixpack in the tenement building and did duty at the soup kitchen I'd agree a bit more. Ed |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> Financial crime? Take a portion of her earnings for X years as a fine. > > That would be a greater burden on the poor than the wealthy. > Some of the > poor commit financial crimes to survive. Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial burden? Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers are now forced to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. > OK, so we take 5% of their > welfare > checks. If a billionaire loses 90% of their wealth, they are still living > pretty good by most standards of middle class America. Just does not seem > all that fair. That's because you're not looking at the situation from a realistic perspective. No matter your income, if you lose 90% of it you life *will* drastically change. Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different if he lost 90% of his income. >> > If I could rob banks instead of >> > working for a living, I'd risk a $50 fine to get caught. I'd not risk >> > anything that has jail time attached to it. >> >> Armed robbery *is* a violent crime and as such would require jail time > since >> the person is a demonstrated *physical threat* to others. > > You can rob banks and not be armed. So as long as I give some of the > money bak I'm off the hook? I've already said a few times that the penalty is not commensurate with the amount you illegally gained, and it was obvious you understood that by your statement above about losing a portion of income. Why do you now attempt argumentum ad ridiculum with "giv[ing] some of the money bak(sic)"? What makes you think you can keep *any* of it? What makes you think that the fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any *less* than the amount you stole? >> Jail for non-violent criminals is barbarism. Why *not* just flog them? > > OK, I'll go for the flogging. (oh, I think that was one of them rhetorcial > thingies) Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no purpose, no net benefit. >> I've already stated it: make the punishment fit the crime. Violent crimes >> get definite prison time to protect society. Non-violent crimes get >> fines, community service, etc. > > Agree to a point. The wealthy tend to have it easy even though they are > doing community service. Instead of reporting to prison, they get to give > speeches at schools to tell our youth not to follow in their path. Then > they have the chauffer take them home and the cook has a nice dinner on > the table for them. You misread my statement. I didn't say it was fines *or* community service. Martha Stewart should pay a hefty fine for her financial misdealings. Maybe community service (speeches aren't community services, picking up trash is community service, filling potholes is community service, picking up dead animals on the highway is community service). > Maybe if they lived for some period of time next door to Joe Sixpack in > the > tenement building and did duty at the soup kitchen I'd agree a bit more. Then quit assuming what I mean and try asking me. I never said making her give speeches was an appropriate punishment. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> Financial crime? Take a portion of her earnings for X years as a fine. > > That would be a greater burden on the poor than the wealthy. > Some of the > poor commit financial crimes to survive. Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial burden? Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers are now forced to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. > OK, so we take 5% of their > welfare > checks. If a billionaire loses 90% of their wealth, they are still living > pretty good by most standards of middle class America. Just does not seem > all that fair. That's because you're not looking at the situation from a realistic perspective. No matter your income, if you lose 90% of it you life *will* drastically change. Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different if he lost 90% of his income. >> > If I could rob banks instead of >> > working for a living, I'd risk a $50 fine to get caught. I'd not risk >> > anything that has jail time attached to it. >> >> Armed robbery *is* a violent crime and as such would require jail time > since >> the person is a demonstrated *physical threat* to others. > > You can rob banks and not be armed. So as long as I give some of the > money bak I'm off the hook? I've already said a few times that the penalty is not commensurate with the amount you illegally gained, and it was obvious you understood that by your statement above about losing a portion of income. Why do you now attempt argumentum ad ridiculum with "giv[ing] some of the money bak(sic)"? What makes you think you can keep *any* of it? What makes you think that the fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any *less* than the amount you stole? >> Jail for non-violent criminals is barbarism. Why *not* just flog them? > > OK, I'll go for the flogging. (oh, I think that was one of them rhetorcial > thingies) Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no purpose, no net benefit. >> I've already stated it: make the punishment fit the crime. Violent crimes >> get definite prison time to protect society. Non-violent crimes get >> fines, community service, etc. > > Agree to a point. The wealthy tend to have it easy even though they are > doing community service. Instead of reporting to prison, they get to give > speeches at schools to tell our youth not to follow in their path. Then > they have the chauffer take them home and the cook has a nice dinner on > the table for them. You misread my statement. I didn't say it was fines *or* community service. Martha Stewart should pay a hefty fine for her financial misdealings. Maybe community service (speeches aren't community services, picking up trash is community service, filling potholes is community service, picking up dead animals on the highway is community service). > Maybe if they lived for some period of time next door to Joe Sixpack in > the > tenement building and did duty at the soup kitchen I'd agree a bit more. Then quit assuming what I mean and try asking me. I never said making her give speeches was an appropriate punishment. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial burden? > Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers are now forced > to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. Their crimes also cost the tax payers a lot of money. When people profit through illegal stock deals the money comes from the other shareholders, most of whom are taxpayers. Knowing that they risk jail time will/should deter them from their illegal activities. > That's because you're not looking at the situation from a realistic > perspective. No matter your income, if you lose 90% of it you life *will* > drastically change. Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different if > he lost 90% of his income. The last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $30.7 Billion. Fining him 90% of his worth would whittle him down to a mere $3.7 Billion. While I appreciate that it would have a significant effect on the guy, that still leaves him with more money than any of us can dream of. Sorry, but as big a financial hit as that it, it still leaves the guy filthy rich. I would prefer to see him do time. > > > You can rob banks and not be armed. So as long as I give some of the > > money bak I'm off the hook? > > I've already said a few times that the penalty is not commensurate with the > amount you illegally gained, and it was obvious you understood that by your > statement above about losing a portion of income. Why do you now attempt > argumentum ad ridiculum with "giv[ing] some of the money bak(sic)"? What > makes you think you can keep *any* of it? What makes you think that the > fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any *less* than the > amount you stole? You keep forgetting the concept of general deterrence. It may be too late for the person who gets caught, but it does keep other people in line. Fear of consequences keeps a lot of people in the straight and narrow. > Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than > flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no purpose, > no net benefit. Jail is barbaric? Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is barbaric. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial burden? > Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers are now forced > to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. Their crimes also cost the tax payers a lot of money. When people profit through illegal stock deals the money comes from the other shareholders, most of whom are taxpayers. Knowing that they risk jail time will/should deter them from their illegal activities. > That's because you're not looking at the situation from a realistic > perspective. No matter your income, if you lose 90% of it you life *will* > drastically change. Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different if > he lost 90% of his income. The last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $30.7 Billion. Fining him 90% of his worth would whittle him down to a mere $3.7 Billion. While I appreciate that it would have a significant effect on the guy, that still leaves him with more money than any of us can dream of. Sorry, but as big a financial hit as that it, it still leaves the guy filthy rich. I would prefer to see him do time. > > > You can rob banks and not be armed. So as long as I give some of the > > money bak I'm off the hook? > > I've already said a few times that the penalty is not commensurate with the > amount you illegally gained, and it was obvious you understood that by your > statement above about losing a portion of income. Why do you now attempt > argumentum ad ridiculum with "giv[ing] some of the money bak(sic)"? What > makes you think you can keep *any* of it? What makes you think that the > fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any *less* than the > amount you stole? You keep forgetting the concept of general deterrence. It may be too late for the person who gets caught, but it does keep other people in line. Fear of consequences keeps a lot of people in the straight and narrow. > Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than > flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no purpose, > no net benefit. Jail is barbaric? Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is barbaric. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial burden? >> Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers are now >> forced to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. > > Their crimes also cost the tax payers a lot of money. So compounding the burden on the tax payers makes the situation *worse* then, not better. > When people profit > through illegal stock deals the money comes from the other shareholders, > most of > whom are taxpayers. No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. What gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the *investor community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. > Knowing that they risk jail time will/should deter > them from their illegal activities. You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail time is not a deterrant. It never has been and it never will be. >> That's because you're not looking at the situation from a realistic >> perspective. No matter your income, if you lose 90% of it you life *will* >> drastically change. Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different >> if he lost 90% of his income. > > The last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $30.7 Billion. Fining him 90% of > his worth would whittle him down to a mere $3.7 Billion. While I > appreciate that it would have a significant effect on the guy, that still > leaves him with more money than any of us can dream of. And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." That he still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away 90% of his incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him dramatically. > Sorry, but as big > a financial hit as that it, > it still leaves the guy filthy rich. Who said that the fine *must* leave the destitute? It's a form of punishment suitable to a type of crime. > I would prefer to see him do time. So? >> > You can rob banks and not be armed. So as long as I give some of the >> > money bak I'm off the hook? >> >> I've already said a few times that the penalty is not commensurate with >> the amount you illegally gained, and it was obvious you understood that >> by your statement above about losing a portion of income. Why do you now >> attempt argumentum ad ridiculum with "giv[ing] some of the money >> bak(sic)"? What makes you think you can keep *any* of it? What makes you >> think that the fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any >> *less* than the amount you stole? > > You keep forgetting the concept of general deterrence. No, I'm forgetting nothing. I'm asserting that the threat of jail time is *not* a deterrant and, in the case of non-violent crimes, is a *barbaric* form of punishment. > It may be too late > for > the person who gets caught, but it does keep other people in line. Fear > of consequences keeps a lot of people in the straight and narrow. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only occurs in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not all, criminals feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about prison time as a deterrant is a fantasy. >> Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than >> flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no >> purpose, no net benefit. > > Jail is barbaric? Yes. > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is > barbaric. No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's not barbaric. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial burden? >> Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers are now >> forced to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. > > Their crimes also cost the tax payers a lot of money. So compounding the burden on the tax payers makes the situation *worse* then, not better. > When people profit > through illegal stock deals the money comes from the other shareholders, > most of > whom are taxpayers. No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. What gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the *investor community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. > Knowing that they risk jail time will/should deter > them from their illegal activities. You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail time is not a deterrant. It never has been and it never will be. >> That's because you're not looking at the situation from a realistic >> perspective. No matter your income, if you lose 90% of it you life *will* >> drastically change. Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different >> if he lost 90% of his income. > > The last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $30.7 Billion. Fining him 90% of > his worth would whittle him down to a mere $3.7 Billion. While I > appreciate that it would have a significant effect on the guy, that still > leaves him with more money than any of us can dream of. And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." That he still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away 90% of his incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him dramatically. > Sorry, but as big > a financial hit as that it, > it still leaves the guy filthy rich. Who said that the fine *must* leave the destitute? It's a form of punishment suitable to a type of crime. > I would prefer to see him do time. So? >> > You can rob banks and not be armed. So as long as I give some of the >> > money bak I'm off the hook? >> >> I've already said a few times that the penalty is not commensurate with >> the amount you illegally gained, and it was obvious you understood that >> by your statement above about losing a portion of income. Why do you now >> attempt argumentum ad ridiculum with "giv[ing] some of the money >> bak(sic)"? What makes you think you can keep *any* of it? What makes you >> think that the fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any >> *less* than the amount you stole? > > You keep forgetting the concept of general deterrence. No, I'm forgetting nothing. I'm asserting that the threat of jail time is *not* a deterrant and, in the case of non-violent crimes, is a *barbaric* form of punishment. > It may be too late > for > the person who gets caught, but it does keep other people in line. Fear > of consequences keeps a lot of people in the straight and narrow. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only occurs in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not all, criminals feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about prison time as a deterrant is a fantasy. >> Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than >> flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no >> purpose, no net benefit. > > Jail is barbaric? Yes. > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is > barbaric. No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's not barbaric. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
> "Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> > > Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial burden? > > Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers are now forced > > to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. Correct. I'm against the death penalty, not because of any kindness of my heart, just that it actually cost the taxpayers more to go through the appeals process and legal BS than it does to just keep themin prison for life. If we eliminated all the legal fluff and just execuste the same day as the sentence is handed down, it would save a bundle. > > > Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different if > > he lost 90% of his income. Different, but still not a bad situation to be in compared to most workers. .. > > What makes you think that the > > fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any *less* than the > > amount you stole? OK so I'll go rob a second bank so I can pony up the bucks for my fine. Or dug up the backyard where the good from the pervious robbery are burried. > > > Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than > > flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no purpose, > > no net benefit. Nothing else has worked for most instances either. Drug dealers are back on the street and back to work. We've not been able to come up with any forms of anything that help some people change their ways. Drug users, prostitutes, petty tieves and shoplifters usually go back to their way of life also. Visits to a physiologist? I will agree with you when you show me some method of puishment and rehabilitation that works on the hard core or frequent offender criminal. Sure, white collar criminals may go straight but this must be weighed on a case by case basis. Ther is no perfect solution for all. . Ed |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
> "Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> > > Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial burden? > > Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers are now forced > > to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. Correct. I'm against the death penalty, not because of any kindness of my heart, just that it actually cost the taxpayers more to go through the appeals process and legal BS than it does to just keep themin prison for life. If we eliminated all the legal fluff and just execuste the same day as the sentence is handed down, it would save a bundle. > > > Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different if > > he lost 90% of his income. Different, but still not a bad situation to be in compared to most workers. .. > > What makes you think that the > > fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any *less* than the > > amount you stole? OK so I'll go rob a second bank so I can pony up the bucks for my fine. Or dug up the backyard where the good from the pervious robbery are burried. > > > Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than > > flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no purpose, > > no net benefit. Nothing else has worked for most instances either. Drug dealers are back on the street and back to work. We've not been able to come up with any forms of anything that help some people change their ways. Drug users, prostitutes, petty tieves and shoplifters usually go back to their way of life also. Visits to a physiologist? I will agree with you when you show me some method of puishment and rehabilitation that works on the hard core or frequent offender criminal. Sure, white collar criminals may go straight but this must be weighed on a case by case basis. Ther is no perfect solution for all. . Ed |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> So compounding the burden on the tax payers makes the situation *worse* > then, not better. I agree that when viewed only as a punishment it is more of a burden on the taxpayer. However, the deterrent effect is a benefit to the taxpayer. > > When people profit > > through illegal stock deals the money comes from the other shareholders, > > most of > > whom are taxpayers. > > No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. What > gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the *investor > community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from the citizens of the country, and they are taxpayers. Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers. > > Knowing that they risk jail time will/should deter > > them from their illegal activities. > > You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail time is not a deterrant. > It never has been and it never will be. On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that jail time is not a deterrent. It is for me. I can think of lots of things that I would do (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to an including jail time. I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had photo radar. His company paid his fines for him and they didn't go on his driving record. He could well afford the penalty, so it wasn't a deterrent. > > The last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $30.7 Billion. Fining him 90% of > > his worth would whittle him down to a mere $3.7 Billion. While I > > appreciate that it would have a significant effect on the guy, that still > > leaves him with more money than any of us can dream of. > > And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." That he > still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away 90% of his > incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his worth > is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him dramatically. And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his worth he would be down to a paltry $3.7 million. That still isn't going to make it hard for him to put food on the table or send the kids to summer camp. > > Sorry, but as big > > a financial hit as that it, > > it still leaves the guy filthy rich. > > Who said that the fine *must* leave the destitute? It's a form of punishment > suitable to a type of crime. Yet a few months in jail, even a Club Fed type jail would leave a lasting impression on him. > I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only occurs > in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not all, criminals > feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about prison time as a > deterrant is a fantasy. That is because so many people get away with these types of crimes. They realize that if the break the law there is a good chance that they will get away with it, and even if they do get caught the consequences are minor. So here we are now with a highly visible case where the courts have the opportunity to set an example and show that not only do people get caught, they pay a huge price for their crime. > > > Jail is barbaric? > > Yes. > > > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is > > barbaric. > > No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's not > barbaric. You might want to look up the definition of barbaric. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> So compounding the burden on the tax payers makes the situation *worse* > then, not better. I agree that when viewed only as a punishment it is more of a burden on the taxpayer. However, the deterrent effect is a benefit to the taxpayer. > > When people profit > > through illegal stock deals the money comes from the other shareholders, > > most of > > whom are taxpayers. > > No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. What > gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the *investor > community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from the citizens of the country, and they are taxpayers. Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers. > > Knowing that they risk jail time will/should deter > > them from their illegal activities. > > You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail time is not a deterrant. > It never has been and it never will be. On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that jail time is not a deterrent. It is for me. I can think of lots of things that I would do (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to an including jail time. I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had photo radar. His company paid his fines for him and they didn't go on his driving record. He could well afford the penalty, so it wasn't a deterrent. > > The last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $30.7 Billion. Fining him 90% of > > his worth would whittle him down to a mere $3.7 Billion. While I > > appreciate that it would have a significant effect on the guy, that still > > leaves him with more money than any of us can dream of. > > And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." That he > still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away 90% of his > incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his worth > is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him dramatically. And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his worth he would be down to a paltry $3.7 million. That still isn't going to make it hard for him to put food on the table or send the kids to summer camp. > > Sorry, but as big > > a financial hit as that it, > > it still leaves the guy filthy rich. > > Who said that the fine *must* leave the destitute? It's a form of punishment > suitable to a type of crime. Yet a few months in jail, even a Club Fed type jail would leave a lasting impression on him. > I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only occurs > in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not all, criminals > feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about prison time as a > deterrant is a fantasy. That is because so many people get away with these types of crimes. They realize that if the break the law there is a good chance that they will get away with it, and even if they do get caught the consequences are minor. So here we are now with a highly visible case where the courts have the opportunity to set an example and show that not only do people get caught, they pay a huge price for their crime. > > > Jail is barbaric? > > Yes. > > > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is > > barbaric. > > No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's not > barbaric. You might want to look up the definition of barbaric. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> So compounding the burden on the tax payers makes the situation *worse* >> then, not better. > > I agree that when viewed only as a punishment it is more of a burden on > the taxpayer. However, the deterrent effect is a benefit to the taxpayer. I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent value of punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for prison to be a deterrent the criminal must be completely rational *at the time* the crime is committed. However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) and operates under both a limited understanding of future events (the "bounded rationality model") and an unrealistically enhanced view of their own success (called the "subjective expected utility model") when committing the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals. Additionally, the low likelihood of being *caught*, let alone enough evidence being collected to get an indictment, a conviction or of any time being served in prison makes the claim of prison being a deterrent even *less* supported by actual fact. "Criminals view punishment as a probability and not a certainty" (from "Social Factors Cause Crimes", pg 20) is quite clearly a statement that shows the deterrence value of prison to be so limited as to be practically worthless in reality. I could go on, but I should spend more time on actually writing the research paper rather than putting snippets of my sources here. <g> >> > When people profit >> > through illegal stock deals the money comes from the other >> > shareholders, most of >> > whom are taxpayers. >> >> No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. What >> gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the *investor >> community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. > > Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from the citizens of > the country, and they are taxpayers. Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers. *Everybody* is a tax payer, but not everybody is affected by illegal stock dealings. Prison time for stock fraud punishes *everyone* while the stock fraud only harms a *few*, and those few are now being punished *more* by having to foot the bill for the jailtime served which will have no *effect*. >> > Knowing that they risk jail time will/should deter >> > them from their illegal activities. >> >> You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail time is not a >> deterrant. It never has been and it never will be. > > On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that jail > time is not a deterrent. How do I prove a negative? Give me an example, please. (hint: the onus is on those who claim prison *is* a deterrent to show it is such) > It is for me. I can think of lots of things that > I would do > (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to an including jail > time. So the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of punishment? You must be a delight to be around. > I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had photo > radar. His company paid his fines for him and they didn't go on his > driving record. He could well afford the penalty, so it wasn't a > deterrent. He faced no penalty, so he committed the crimes. How do you think such proves me wrong, exactly? I've been saying that the threat of punishment does *not* deter from committing crimes. You just explained a situation where someone does *not* face any threat of punishment and he continues to commit a crime. What's the point there? >> > The last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $30.7 Billion. Fining him 90% >> > of his worth would whittle him down to a mere $3.7 Billion. While I >> > appreciate that it would have a significant effect on the guy, that >> > still leaves him with more money than any of us can dream of. >> >> And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." That >> he still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away 90% of >> his incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his >> worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him dramatically. > > And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his worth he would be > down to a paltry $3.7 million. That still isn't going to make it hard for > him to put food on the table or send the kids to summer camp. And who said it *had* to? But, you've now taken him from 30.7 BILLION to 3.7 MILLION (your math is wrong, since it would be 370 million) and are trying to argue that we've not significantly affected his life because he has more money than us? Is that *really* your point? >> > Sorry, but as big >> > a financial hit as that it, >> > it still leaves the guy filthy rich. >> >> Who said that the fine *must* leave the destitute? It's a form of >> punishment suitable to a type of crime. > > Yet a few months in jail, even a Club Fed type jail would leave a lasting > impression on him. So would a hefty fine, and that *without* further punishment of making the taxpayers pay for the criminals punishment. And, of that "lasting impression" what do you think will happen? That he will suddenly stop committing crimes? Again, I'll point you to the recidivism statistics to show that that doesn't happen either. It all boils down to jail being nothing more than a punishment, pure and simple. It's not a deterrent, since crime rates haven't dropped and the prison population continues to grow. It's not rehabilitating since recidivism rates are high. It's nothing more than punishment, pure and simple. And, in the case of non-violent offenders, it's barbaric punishment since the punishment does *not* fit the crime. >> I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only >> occurs in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not all, >> criminals feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about >> prison time as a deterrant is a fantasy. > > That is because so many people get away with these types of crimes. And your theoretical deterrency value of prison just went out the window. > They > realize that if the break the law there is a good chance that they will > get away with it, and even if they do get caught the consequences are > minor. So here we are now with a highly visible case where the courts have > the opportunity to set an example and show that not only do people get > caught, they pay a huge price for their crime. You think throwing Martha Stewart in jail is going to make others stop committing crime? Is she the first person to ever be convicted of such a crime in such a high profile case? I think not, and yet the crime continues to happen. Why? Because people *still* expect *they* won't make the same mistakes and get caught. They aren't deterred by jail, they are instead shown ways to avoid getting caught by not committing her mistakes. The subjective expected utility model strikes again. >> > Jail is barbaric? >> >> Yes. >> >> > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is >> > barbaric. >> >> No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's not >> barbaric. > > You might want to look up the definition of barbaric. "[P]ossessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization" (from Merriam Webster). Throwing everybody who commits a crime into a 6'x9' cell for 23 hours a day is most definitely barbaric. Threat to others? Thrown in a cell. Stole a wallet? Thrown in a cell. Stole investment money? Thrown in a cell. Had an ounce of pot? Thrown in a cell. Had too many traffic tickets? Thrown in a cell. That's only a single step above the more savage act of cutting off the hand of a thief or the penis of an adulterer. It's hardly sophisticated and doesn't do anything more than exact a measure of punishment that is of little effect on the criminal. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> So compounding the burden on the tax payers makes the situation *worse* >> then, not better. > > I agree that when viewed only as a punishment it is more of a burden on > the taxpayer. However, the deterrent effect is a benefit to the taxpayer. I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent value of punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for prison to be a deterrent the criminal must be completely rational *at the time* the crime is committed. However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) and operates under both a limited understanding of future events (the "bounded rationality model") and an unrealistically enhanced view of their own success (called the "subjective expected utility model") when committing the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals. Additionally, the low likelihood of being *caught*, let alone enough evidence being collected to get an indictment, a conviction or of any time being served in prison makes the claim of prison being a deterrent even *less* supported by actual fact. "Criminals view punishment as a probability and not a certainty" (from "Social Factors Cause Crimes", pg 20) is quite clearly a statement that shows the deterrence value of prison to be so limited as to be practically worthless in reality. I could go on, but I should spend more time on actually writing the research paper rather than putting snippets of my sources here. <g> >> > When people profit >> > through illegal stock deals the money comes from the other >> > shareholders, most of >> > whom are taxpayers. >> >> No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. What >> gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the *investor >> community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. > > Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from the citizens of > the country, and they are taxpayers. Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers. *Everybody* is a tax payer, but not everybody is affected by illegal stock dealings. Prison time for stock fraud punishes *everyone* while the stock fraud only harms a *few*, and those few are now being punished *more* by having to foot the bill for the jailtime served which will have no *effect*. >> > Knowing that they risk jail time will/should deter >> > them from their illegal activities. >> >> You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail time is not a >> deterrant. It never has been and it never will be. > > On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that jail > time is not a deterrent. How do I prove a negative? Give me an example, please. (hint: the onus is on those who claim prison *is* a deterrent to show it is such) > It is for me. I can think of lots of things that > I would do > (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to an including jail > time. So the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of punishment? You must be a delight to be around. > I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had photo > radar. His company paid his fines for him and they didn't go on his > driving record. He could well afford the penalty, so it wasn't a > deterrent. He faced no penalty, so he committed the crimes. How do you think such proves me wrong, exactly? I've been saying that the threat of punishment does *not* deter from committing crimes. You just explained a situation where someone does *not* face any threat of punishment and he continues to commit a crime. What's the point there? >> > The last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $30.7 Billion. Fining him 90% >> > of his worth would whittle him down to a mere $3.7 Billion. While I >> > appreciate that it would have a significant effect on the guy, that >> > still leaves him with more money than any of us can dream of. >> >> And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." That >> he still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away 90% of >> his incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his >> worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him dramatically. > > And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his worth he would be > down to a paltry $3.7 million. That still isn't going to make it hard for > him to put food on the table or send the kids to summer camp. And who said it *had* to? But, you've now taken him from 30.7 BILLION to 3.7 MILLION (your math is wrong, since it would be 370 million) and are trying to argue that we've not significantly affected his life because he has more money than us? Is that *really* your point? >> > Sorry, but as big >> > a financial hit as that it, >> > it still leaves the guy filthy rich. >> >> Who said that the fine *must* leave the destitute? It's a form of >> punishment suitable to a type of crime. > > Yet a few months in jail, even a Club Fed type jail would leave a lasting > impression on him. So would a hefty fine, and that *without* further punishment of making the taxpayers pay for the criminals punishment. And, of that "lasting impression" what do you think will happen? That he will suddenly stop committing crimes? Again, I'll point you to the recidivism statistics to show that that doesn't happen either. It all boils down to jail being nothing more than a punishment, pure and simple. It's not a deterrent, since crime rates haven't dropped and the prison population continues to grow. It's not rehabilitating since recidivism rates are high. It's nothing more than punishment, pure and simple. And, in the case of non-violent offenders, it's barbaric punishment since the punishment does *not* fit the crime. >> I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only >> occurs in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not all, >> criminals feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about >> prison time as a deterrant is a fantasy. > > That is because so many people get away with these types of crimes. And your theoretical deterrency value of prison just went out the window. > They > realize that if the break the law there is a good chance that they will > get away with it, and even if they do get caught the consequences are > minor. So here we are now with a highly visible case where the courts have > the opportunity to set an example and show that not only do people get > caught, they pay a huge price for their crime. You think throwing Martha Stewart in jail is going to make others stop committing crime? Is she the first person to ever be convicted of such a crime in such a high profile case? I think not, and yet the crime continues to happen. Why? Because people *still* expect *they* won't make the same mistakes and get caught. They aren't deterred by jail, they are instead shown ways to avoid getting caught by not committing her mistakes. The subjective expected utility model strikes again. >> > Jail is barbaric? >> >> Yes. >> >> > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is >> > barbaric. >> >> No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's not >> barbaric. > > You might want to look up the definition of barbaric. "[P]ossessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization" (from Merriam Webster). Throwing everybody who commits a crime into a 6'x9' cell for 23 hours a day is most definitely barbaric. Threat to others? Thrown in a cell. Stole a wallet? Thrown in a cell. Stole investment money? Thrown in a cell. Had an ounce of pot? Thrown in a cell. Had too many traffic tickets? Thrown in a cell. That's only a single step above the more savage act of cutting off the hand of a thief or the penis of an adulterer. It's hardly sophisticated and doesn't do anything more than exact a measure of punishment that is of little effect on the criminal. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> > Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial >> > burden? Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers >> > are now > forced >> > to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. > > Correct. I'm against the death penalty, not because of any kindness of my > heart, just that it actually cost the taxpayers more to go through the > appeals process and legal BS than it does to just keep themin prison for > life. If we eliminated all the legal fluff and just execuste the same day > as the sentence is handed down, it would save a bundle. Including any chance of finding out you had the wrong person. I'm for the death penalty, but against rushing to it. I don't think it should go on for 20 years, but going to the other extreme of executing the same day as sentencing isn't the right answer either. >> > Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different if >> > he lost 90% of his income. > > Different, but still not a bad situation to be in compared to most > workers. . How his life measures up to others is irrelevant to whether the punishment is effective. If you were fined $5000 your life would probably "still not [be] a bad situation" compared to someone on welfare, who would be devastated by the same. You're comparing his life to yours rather than seeing if *he* is affected. >> > What makes you think that the >> > fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any *less* than > the >> > amount you stole? > > OK so I'll go rob a second bank so I can pony up the bucks for my fine. > Or dug up the backyard where the good from the pervious robbery are > burried. You're getting somewhat irrational in your response here. I've already stated that bank robbery *is* a violent offense and *does* require jail time. >> > Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than >> > flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no > purpose, >> > no net benefit. > > Nothing else has worked for most instances either. So, forget what works and just use what we have left? Do you think that that's going to work, or is it just a case of "at least *we* will feel like we're doing something about the problem"? > Drug dealers are back > on > the street and back to work. We've not been able to come up with any > forms of anything that help some people change their ways. Drug users, > prostitutes, petty tieves and shoplifters usually go back to their way of > life also. Well, there are other ways to deal with that problem as well, rather than just locking them up and having the rest of society pay for their continued incarceration. > Visits to a physiologist? Do you mean a psychologist? > I will agree with you when you > show me some method of puishment and rehabilitation that works on the hard > core > or frequent offender criminal. Sorry, but when did I say they shouldn't be in prison? And, why would I have to offer a different solution in order for you to see that the current one doesn't work? > Sure, white collar criminals may go > straight > but this must be weighed on a case by case basis. Ther is no perfect > solution for all. Well, golly, and that's part of what I've been saying. Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others are arguing that is is. It's not the perfect solution that you've suggested it is. It doesn't even work as a deterrent nor was it intended to even *be* a deterrent. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> > Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial >> > burden? Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers >> > are now > forced >> > to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners. > > Correct. I'm against the death penalty, not because of any kindness of my > heart, just that it actually cost the taxpayers more to go through the > appeals process and legal BS than it does to just keep themin prison for > life. If we eliminated all the legal fluff and just execuste the same day > as the sentence is handed down, it would save a bundle. Including any chance of finding out you had the wrong person. I'm for the death penalty, but against rushing to it. I don't think it should go on for 20 years, but going to the other extreme of executing the same day as sentencing isn't the right answer either. >> > Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different if >> > he lost 90% of his income. > > Different, but still not a bad situation to be in compared to most > workers. . How his life measures up to others is irrelevant to whether the punishment is effective. If you were fined $5000 your life would probably "still not [be] a bad situation" compared to someone on welfare, who would be devastated by the same. You're comparing his life to yours rather than seeing if *he* is affected. >> > What makes you think that the >> > fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any *less* than > the >> > amount you stole? > > OK so I'll go rob a second bank so I can pony up the bucks for my fine. > Or dug up the backyard where the good from the pervious robbery are > burried. You're getting somewhat irrational in your response here. I've already stated that bank robbery *is* a violent offense and *does* require jail time. >> > Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than >> > flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no > purpose, >> > no net benefit. > > Nothing else has worked for most instances either. So, forget what works and just use what we have left? Do you think that that's going to work, or is it just a case of "at least *we* will feel like we're doing something about the problem"? > Drug dealers are back > on > the street and back to work. We've not been able to come up with any > forms of anything that help some people change their ways. Drug users, > prostitutes, petty tieves and shoplifters usually go back to their way of > life also. Well, there are other ways to deal with that problem as well, rather than just locking them up and having the rest of society pay for their continued incarceration. > Visits to a physiologist? Do you mean a psychologist? > I will agree with you when you > show me some method of puishment and rehabilitation that works on the hard > core > or frequent offender criminal. Sorry, but when did I say they shouldn't be in prison? And, why would I have to offer a different solution in order for you to see that the current one doesn't work? > Sure, white collar criminals may go > straight > but this must be weighed on a case by case basis. Ther is no perfect > solution for all. Well, golly, and that's part of what I've been saying. Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others are arguing that is is. It's not the perfect solution that you've suggested it is. It doesn't even work as a deterrent nor was it intended to even *be* a deterrent. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent value of > punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for prison to be a deterrent > the criminal must be completely rational *at the time* the crime is > committed. However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) and > operates under both a limited understanding of future events (the "bounded > rationality model") and an unrealistically enhanced view of their own > success (called the "subjective expected utility model") when committing > the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in > any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals. Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white collar" crimes. SOme cases of murder and assault are the result of a set of circumstances gettting out of hand and a loss of rational thought. That is not at all the case with white collar crimes. These are actions that result from careful planning. > Additionally, the low likelihood of being *caught*, let alone enough > evidence being collected to get an indictment, a conviction or of any time > being served in prison makes the claim of prison being a deterrent even > *less* supported by actual fact. "Criminals view punishment as a > probability and not a certainty" (from "Social Factors Cause Crimes", pg > 20) is quite clearly a statement that shows the deterrence value of prison > to be so limited as to be practically worthless in reality. Sure, some people expect to get away with their crimes. That is why part of the deal is public exposure, so that the public knows that there has been a crime and that someone has been charged/ convicted / sentenced. There is no deterrent if people simply pay a fine as if it were some sort of hush money, or if they suddenly disappear from th streets and no one knows where they have gone or why. > I could go on, but I should spend more time on actually writing the research > paper rather than putting snippets of my sources here. <g> I can understand the <g> grin. It sounds liek your "research is a bit of a joke. > >> No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. What > >> gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the *investor > >> community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. > > > > Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from the citizens of > > the country, and they are taxpayers. Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers. > > *Everybody* is a tax payer, but not everybody is affected by illegal stock > dealings. Prison time for stock fraud punishes *everyone* while the stock > fraud only harms a *few*, and those few are now being punished *more* by > having to foot the bill for the jailtime served which will have no > *effect*. Not everyone is affected by a murder, an assault or a theft either. They are just members of the general public. They all expect the criminal justice system to protect all of us from criminals. That is part of being part of a civilized society. We have given up on individual acts of revenge in return for having a set of lawas which have been enacted and enforced by our government. > > On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that jail > > time is not a deterrent. > > How do I prove a negative? Give me an example, please. (hint: the onus is on > those who claim prison *is* a deterrent to show it is such) For a start, you could try using your noodle for something other than a hat rack. Jail is not a great place to be. Most of us realize that. We realize that breaking certain laws can result in our being sentenced to a jail term, so we refrain from committing those crimes. Granted, some people like jail Some homeless people have been known to commit petty crimes in order to be taken in to a place where there is shelter and food. Obviously, they are few and far between. > > It is for me. I can think of lots of things that > > I would do > > (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to an including jail > > time. > > So the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of punishment? You must be > a delight to be around. I was referring to victimless crimes. They don't hurt anyone. There are states in the US where certain sex acts are illegal. Oral or anal sex could get you a jail term, even when it takes place between consenting adults. Pot smoking hurts no one, ut can get you a jail term. A lot of people would love to smoke pot, but are not willing to take the chance because they might get caught and end up in jail. > > > > I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had photo > > radar. His company paid his fines for him and they didn't go on his > > driving record. He could well afford the penalty, so it wasn't a > > deterrent. > > He faced no penalty, so he committed the crimes. How do you think such > proves me wrong, exactly? I've been saying that the threat of punishment > does *not* deter from committing crimes. You just explained a situation > where someone does *not* face any threat of punishment and he continues to > commit a crime. What's the point there? There was a threat of punishment. His company paid his fines. He owns the company. It cuts into company profits, but it gets written off. It's peanuts to him personally. It is still a form of punishment, but the impact upon him is minimal, so it does not have a deterrent effect. > of. > >> > >> And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." That > >> he still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away 90% of > >> his incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his > >> worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him dramatically. > > > > And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his worth he would be > > down to a paltry $3.7 million. That still isn't going to make it hard for > > him to put food on the table or send the kids to summer camp. > > And who said it *had* to? But, you've now taken him from 30.7 BILLION to 3.7 > MILLION (your math is wrong, since it would be 370 million) and are trying > to argue that we've not significantly affected his life because he has more > money than us? Is that *really* your point? Oops, you're right, My math was wrong. We left him with $370 million. I magine how he is going to have to scrimp and save to get by with only $370 million. If I were fined 90% of my worth, I would be in the poor house. > > So would a hefty fine, and that *without* further punishment of making the > taxpayers pay for the criminals punishment. And, of that "lasting > impression" what do you think will happen? That he will suddenly stop > committing crimes? Again, I'll point you to the recidivism statistics to > show that that doesn't happen either. Who said anything about jail time only? I could do a stretch in prison for a few million dollars that I can get at when I get out. > > > It all boils down to jail being nothing more than a punishment, pure and > simple. It's not a deterrent, since crime rates haven't dropped and the > prison population continues to grow. ?????? It isn't that simple. Look at what people are in jail for. In the US, a huge percentage of inmates are in there for drug charges. A lot of them are from poor backgrounds where the drug trade was a chance to make better money than they could get flipping burgers. Look at crime rates in less civilized countries where there is no law and order. > It's not rehabilitating since > recidivism rates are high. It's nothing more than punishment, pure and > simple. Yet, some people are still afraid to do things that might land them in jail .... that is deterrent. > >> I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only > >> occurs in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not all, > >> criminals feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about > >> prison time as a deterrant is a fantasy. > > > > That is because so many people get away with these types of crimes. > > And your theoretical deterrency value of prison just went out the window. I don't think so. It just means that those people were not deterred. It is hard to say how many others were deterred. > >> > Jail is barbaric? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is > >> > barbaric. > >> > >> No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's not > >> barbaric. > > > > You might want to look up the definition of barbaric. > > "[P]ossessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than > primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization" (from > Merriam Webster). Throwing everybody who commits a crime into a 6'x9' cell > for 23 hours a day is most definitely barbaric. Threat to others? Thrown in > a cell. Stole a wallet? Thrown in a cell. Stole investment money? Thrown in > a cell. Had an ounce of pot? Thrown in a cell. Had too many traffic > tickets? Thrown in a cell. That's only a single step above the more savage > act of cutting off the hand of a thief or the penis of an adulterer. It's > hardly sophisticated and doesn't do anything more than exact a measure of > punishment that is of little effect on the criminal. Oddly, those are the actions of an advanced society. There is a code of jutsice that defines certain activities as illegal and punishable by jail sentences. Prisoners are treated humanely. They are fed and housed, but have lost their liberty. By your own defintion it is not barbaric. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent value of > punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for prison to be a deterrent > the criminal must be completely rational *at the time* the crime is > committed. However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) and > operates under both a limited understanding of future events (the "bounded > rationality model") and an unrealistically enhanced view of their own > success (called the "subjective expected utility model") when committing > the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in > any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals. Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white collar" crimes. SOme cases of murder and assault are the result of a set of circumstances gettting out of hand and a loss of rational thought. That is not at all the case with white collar crimes. These are actions that result from careful planning. > Additionally, the low likelihood of being *caught*, let alone enough > evidence being collected to get an indictment, a conviction or of any time > being served in prison makes the claim of prison being a deterrent even > *less* supported by actual fact. "Criminals view punishment as a > probability and not a certainty" (from "Social Factors Cause Crimes", pg > 20) is quite clearly a statement that shows the deterrence value of prison > to be so limited as to be practically worthless in reality. Sure, some people expect to get away with their crimes. That is why part of the deal is public exposure, so that the public knows that there has been a crime and that someone has been charged/ convicted / sentenced. There is no deterrent if people simply pay a fine as if it were some sort of hush money, or if they suddenly disappear from th streets and no one knows where they have gone or why. > I could go on, but I should spend more time on actually writing the research > paper rather than putting snippets of my sources here. <g> I can understand the <g> grin. It sounds liek your "research is a bit of a joke. > >> No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. What > >> gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the *investor > >> community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. > > > > Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from the citizens of > > the country, and they are taxpayers. Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers. > > *Everybody* is a tax payer, but not everybody is affected by illegal stock > dealings. Prison time for stock fraud punishes *everyone* while the stock > fraud only harms a *few*, and those few are now being punished *more* by > having to foot the bill for the jailtime served which will have no > *effect*. Not everyone is affected by a murder, an assault or a theft either. They are just members of the general public. They all expect the criminal justice system to protect all of us from criminals. That is part of being part of a civilized society. We have given up on individual acts of revenge in return for having a set of lawas which have been enacted and enforced by our government. > > On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that jail > > time is not a deterrent. > > How do I prove a negative? Give me an example, please. (hint: the onus is on > those who claim prison *is* a deterrent to show it is such) For a start, you could try using your noodle for something other than a hat rack. Jail is not a great place to be. Most of us realize that. We realize that breaking certain laws can result in our being sentenced to a jail term, so we refrain from committing those crimes. Granted, some people like jail Some homeless people have been known to commit petty crimes in order to be taken in to a place where there is shelter and food. Obviously, they are few and far between. > > It is for me. I can think of lots of things that > > I would do > > (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to an including jail > > time. > > So the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of punishment? You must be > a delight to be around. I was referring to victimless crimes. They don't hurt anyone. There are states in the US where certain sex acts are illegal. Oral or anal sex could get you a jail term, even when it takes place between consenting adults. Pot smoking hurts no one, ut can get you a jail term. A lot of people would love to smoke pot, but are not willing to take the chance because they might get caught and end up in jail. > > > > I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had photo > > radar. His company paid his fines for him and they didn't go on his > > driving record. He could well afford the penalty, so it wasn't a > > deterrent. > > He faced no penalty, so he committed the crimes. How do you think such > proves me wrong, exactly? I've been saying that the threat of punishment > does *not* deter from committing crimes. You just explained a situation > where someone does *not* face any threat of punishment and he continues to > commit a crime. What's the point there? There was a threat of punishment. His company paid his fines. He owns the company. It cuts into company profits, but it gets written off. It's peanuts to him personally. It is still a form of punishment, but the impact upon him is minimal, so it does not have a deterrent effect. > of. > >> > >> And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." That > >> he still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away 90% of > >> his incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his > >> worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him dramatically. > > > > And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his worth he would be > > down to a paltry $3.7 million. That still isn't going to make it hard for > > him to put food on the table or send the kids to summer camp. > > And who said it *had* to? But, you've now taken him from 30.7 BILLION to 3.7 > MILLION (your math is wrong, since it would be 370 million) and are trying > to argue that we've not significantly affected his life because he has more > money than us? Is that *really* your point? Oops, you're right, My math was wrong. We left him with $370 million. I magine how he is going to have to scrimp and save to get by with only $370 million. If I were fined 90% of my worth, I would be in the poor house. > > So would a hefty fine, and that *without* further punishment of making the > taxpayers pay for the criminals punishment. And, of that "lasting > impression" what do you think will happen? That he will suddenly stop > committing crimes? Again, I'll point you to the recidivism statistics to > show that that doesn't happen either. Who said anything about jail time only? I could do a stretch in prison for a few million dollars that I can get at when I get out. > > > It all boils down to jail being nothing more than a punishment, pure and > simple. It's not a deterrent, since crime rates haven't dropped and the > prison population continues to grow. ?????? It isn't that simple. Look at what people are in jail for. In the US, a huge percentage of inmates are in there for drug charges. A lot of them are from poor backgrounds where the drug trade was a chance to make better money than they could get flipping burgers. Look at crime rates in less civilized countries where there is no law and order. > It's not rehabilitating since > recidivism rates are high. It's nothing more than punishment, pure and > simple. Yet, some people are still afraid to do things that might land them in jail .... that is deterrent. > >> I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only > >> occurs in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not all, > >> criminals feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about > >> prison time as a deterrant is a fantasy. > > > > That is because so many people get away with these types of crimes. > > And your theoretical deterrency value of prison just went out the window. I don't think so. It just means that those people were not deterred. It is hard to say how many others were deterred. > >> > Jail is barbaric? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is > >> > barbaric. > >> > >> No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's not > >> barbaric. > > > > You might want to look up the definition of barbaric. > > "[P]ossessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than > primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization" (from > Merriam Webster). Throwing everybody who commits a crime into a 6'x9' cell > for 23 hours a day is most definitely barbaric. Threat to others? Thrown in > a cell. Stole a wallet? Thrown in a cell. Stole investment money? Thrown in > a cell. Had an ounce of pot? Thrown in a cell. Had too many traffic > tickets? Thrown in a cell. That's only a single step above the more savage > act of cutting off the hand of a thief or the penis of an adulterer. It's > hardly sophisticated and doesn't do anything more than exact a measure of > punishment that is of little effect on the criminal. Oddly, those are the actions of an advanced society. There is a code of jutsice that defines certain activities as illegal and punishable by jail sentences. Prisoners are treated humanely. They are fed and housed, but have lost their liberty. By your own defintion it is not barbaric. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Let her fry.
--Blair "It had to be said." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Let her fry.
--Blair "It had to be said." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
SportKite1 wrote:
>>From: Dave Smith > >>But what about the honest people who lost a substantial portion of their >>hard earned savings because of her crooked dealings? > > Hmmm...I was always under the impression that playing the stocks was a > gamble to begin with. If one invests their life's savings solely into a > stock such as this one to begin with, I'd say that person was a fool and > deserved what they got. Oh, be careful. Otherwise, we'll have people trotting out little old ladies who lost everything because they invested where the evil rich told them to invest... I'm sorry for the people who lost their money as well, but the fact of the matter is that, like you said, stocks are a gamble and you shouldn't be gambling what you can't afford to lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
SportKite1 wrote:
>>From: Dave Smith > >>But what about the honest people who lost a substantial portion of their >>hard earned savings because of her crooked dealings? > > Hmmm...I was always under the impression that playing the stocks was a > gamble to begin with. If one invests their life's savings solely into a > stock such as this one to begin with, I'd say that person was a fool and > deserved what they got. Oh, be careful. Otherwise, we'll have people trotting out little old ladies who lost everything because they invested where the evil rich told them to invest... I'm sorry for the people who lost their money as well, but the fact of the matter is that, like you said, stocks are a gamble and you shouldn't be gambling what you can't afford to lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent value of >> punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for prison to be a deterrent >> the criminal must be completely rational *at the time* the crime is >> committed. However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) >> and operates under both a limited understanding of future events (the >> "bounded rationality model") and an unrealistically enhanced view of >> their own success (called the "subjective expected utility model") when >> committing the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a >> deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the >> criminals. > > 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*. > SOme cases of murder and assault are the result of a set of circumstances > gettting out of hand and a loss of rational thought. That is not at all > the case with white collar crimes. These are actions that result from > careful planning. Not all white collar crimes are the result of careful planning. They are the result of impulsive behavior that sets into effect a chain of events, each of which requires some action by the person to either end the chain, cover up their actions or, in the worst case, face the consequences when they're found out. To think that white collar crimes are meticulously thought out or even thought out to a great extent is to believe in myths. >> Additionally, the low likelihood of being *caught*, let alone enough >> evidence being collected to get an indictment, a conviction or of any >> time being served in prison makes the claim of prison being a deterrent >> even *less* supported by actual fact. "Criminals view punishment as a >> probability and not a certainty" (from "Social Factors Cause Crimes", pg >> 20) is quite clearly a statement that shows the deterrence value of >> prison to be so limited as to be practically worthless in reality. > > Sure, some people expect to get away with their crimes. That is why part > of the deal is public exposure, so that the public knows that there has > been a crime > and that someone has been charged/ convicted / sentenced. There is no > deterrent if people simply pay a fine as if it were some sort of hush > money, or if they suddenly disappear from th streets and no one knows > where they have gone or why. The problem you're having is thinking that punishment *is* a deterrent. I never said that paying a fine was a deterrent any more than going to jail is a deterrent. I said that paying a fine was *appropriate* given the crime Martha Stewart committed; i.e., her's wasn't violent so sending her to jail is barbaric. There's no such thing as a deterrent that doesn't involve the use of force to attempt to physically *prevent* crimes from happening. >> I could go on, but I should spend more time on actually writing the >> research paper rather than putting snippets of my sources here. <g> > > I can understand the <g> grin. It sounds liek your "research is a bit of > a joke. How very presumptuous of you. You're quite wrong, however. Why do you assume that it's "a bit of a joke"? >> >> No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. >> >> What gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the >> >> *investor community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. >> > >> > Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from the citizens of >> > the country, and they are taxpayers. Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers. >> >> *Everybody* is a tax payer, but not everybody is affected by illegal >> stock dealings. Prison time for stock fraud punishes *everyone* while the >> stock fraud only harms a *few*, and those few are now being punished >> *more* by having to foot the bill for the jailtime served which will have >> no *effect*. > > Not everyone is affected by a murder, an assault or a theft either. They > are just members of the general public. They all expect the criminal > justice system to protect all of us from criminals. You are not protected from anything by the government, sorry to say. The government *cannot* protect you *from* crime unless it became a tyranny. It can only *prohibit* actions and then *punish* those who commit those acts. > That is part of being > part of a civilized society. We have given up on individual acts of > revenge in return for having a set of lawas which have been enacted and > enforced by our government. And I'm saying that the punishment handed out in accordance with those laws is barbaric when it comes to non-violent offenders. What made you think I was debating the law when I've been talking *solely* about punishment? >> > On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that >> > jail time is not a deterrent. >> >> How do I prove a negative? Give me an example, please. (hint: the onus is >> on those who claim prison *is* a deterrent to show it is such) > > For a start, you could try using your noodle for something other than a > hat > rack. Why the attempted personal insults? Between your insinuations that I'm being untruthful about my paper and research to your need to use ad hominem, I wonder... > Jail is not a great place to be. Most of us realize that. Why do you think I call it barbaric to put a non-violent offender into jail? > We > realize that breaking certain laws can result in our being sentenced to a > jail term, so we > refrain from committing those crimes. Do we? Or do *we* (non-criminals) not commit crimes for reasons *other* than "I don't want to go to jail"? And do those who commit crimes do so because they think "I'll never get caught"? Are you a law-abiding citizen because you're afraid of jail or for some other reason? Please answer that question for me. > Granted, some people like jail Some > homeless people have been known to commit petty crimes in order to be > taken in > to a place where there is shelter and food. Obviously, they are few and > far between. And are yet *another* example of prison not being any form of deterrent. >> > It is for me. I can think of lots of things that >> > I would do >> > (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to an including jail >> > time. >> >> So the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of punishment? You must >> be a delight to be around. > > I was referring to victimless crimes. They don't hurt anyone. There are > states in the US where certain sex acts are illegal. Oral or anal sex > could get you a > jail term, even when it takes place between consenting adults. Pot > smoking > hurts no one, ut can get you a jail term. A lot of people would love to > smoke pot, but are not willing to take the chance because they might get > caught and end up in jail. And I, again, ask you, is the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of punishment? Or is there some other reason why you are civil? This seems to go to the heart of your assertion that prison is a deterrent. It sounds like you're a law-abiding citizen for *other* reasons and that it's not deterrence that's making you that way. >> > I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had photo >> > radar. His company paid his fines for him and they didn't go on his >> > driving record. He could well afford the penalty, so it wasn't a >> > deterrent. >> >> He faced no penalty, so he committed the crimes. How do you think such >> proves me wrong, exactly? I've been saying that the threat of punishment >> does *not* deter from committing crimes. You just explained a situation >> where someone does *not* face any threat of punishment and he continues >> to commit a crime. What's the point there? > > There was a threat of punishment. His company paid his fines. He owns the > company. It cuts into company profits, but it gets written off. It's > peanuts to him personally. It is still a form of punishment, but the > impact upon him is minimal, so it does not have a deterrent effect. As I said, it's not a penalty to him. He's not losing anything in doing it. So, I again ask you, of what relevance is the story to my statement that the threat of prison is not a deterrent to criminals? >> >> And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." >> >> That he still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away >> >> 90% of his incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's >> >> case, his worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him >> >> dramatically. >> > >> > And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his worth he would >> > be down to a paltry $3.7 million. That still isn't going to make it >> > hard for him to put food on the table or send the kids to summer camp. >> >> And who said it *had* to? But, you've now taken him from 30.7 BILLION to >> 3.7 MILLION (your math is wrong, since it would be 370 million) and are >> trying to argue that we've not significantly affected his life because he >> has more money than us? Is that *really* your point? > > Oops, you're right, My math was wrong. We left him with $370 million. I > magine how he is going to have to scrimp and save to get by with only $370 > million. If I were fined 90% of my worth, I would be in the poor house. And you're again missing the point. Who *cares* how his life compares to yours, that's immaterial to the point that *his* life has been changed. Whether it's still better than yours or not is irrelevant to the fact that *his* life is now changed. >> So would a hefty fine, and that *without* further punishment of making >> the taxpayers pay for the criminals punishment. And, of that "lasting >> impression" what do you think will happen? That he will suddenly stop >> committing crimes? Again, I'll point you to the recidivism statistics to >> show that that doesn't happen either. > > Who said anything about jail time only? I could do a stretch in prison > for a few million dollars that I can get at when I get out. You seem to be stuck in viewing his money from *your* financial standpoint. Try viewing it from his. >> It all boils down to jail being nothing more than a punishment, pure and >> simple. It's not a deterrent, since crime rates haven't dropped and the >> prison population continues to grow. > > ?????? It isn't that simple. It most certainly is. If the fear of prison were a deterrent then crime rates would go *down*. They *don't*. > Look at what people are in jail for. In > the US, a huge percentage of inmates are in there for drug charges. So? If the fear of jail were a deterrent then it would have a quantifiable effect; we would see a marked decrease in crime rates. But, we don't. We see an *increase* in crime rates. That's quite indicative of your assertion being *wrong*. > A lot > of them are from poor backgrounds where the drug trade was a chance to > make better money > than they could get flipping burgers. So, they weren't deterred by the threat of prison. Thank you for again proving my point. > Look at crime rates in less > civilized countries where there is no law and order. If there is no law and order, there is no fear of prison, so I don't see how that has any bearing on this thread. Care to explain how it relates to this? >> It's not rehabilitating since >> recidivism rates are high. It's nothing more than punishment, pure and >> simple. > > Yet, some people are still afraid to do things that might land them in > jail .... that is deterrent. Can you cite a reference to the number of people, or are they hypothetical? >> >> I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only >> >> occurs in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not >> >> all, criminals feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion >> >> about prison time as a deterrant is a fantasy. >> > >> > That is because so many people get away with these types of crimes. >> >> And your theoretical deterrency value of prison just went out the window. > > I don't think so. It just means that those people were not deterred. And your claim is that prison *is* a deterrent, while you're now telling me that it's not but trying to wave that away. > It is > hard to say how many others were deterred. Then how can you claim *any* are deterred in any number sufficient to claim that, on the whole, prison is a deterrent? >> >> > Jail is barbaric? >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >> > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is >> >> > barbaric. >> >> >> >> No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's >> >> not barbaric. >> > >> > You might want to look up the definition of barbaric. >> >> "[P]ossessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than >> primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization" >> (from Merriam Webster). Throwing everybody who commits a crime into a >> 6'x9' cell for 23 hours a day is most definitely barbaric. Threat to >> others? Thrown in a cell. Stole a wallet? Thrown in a cell. Stole >> investment money? Thrown in a cell. Had an ounce of pot? Thrown in a >> cell. Had too many traffic tickets? Thrown in a cell. That's only a >> single step above the more savage act of cutting off the hand of a thief >> or the penis of an adulterer. It's hardly sophisticated and doesn't do >> anything more than exact a measure of punishment that is of little effect >> on the criminal. > > Oddly, those are the actions of an advanced society. Doling out the same punishment for every crime is your idea of an advanced society? > There is a code of > jutsice that defines certain activities as illegal and punishable by jail > sentences. You're assuming your conclusion in adding the "punishable by jail sentences" part. Why do you think jail is an enlightened punishment? > Prisoners are treated humanely. They are fed and housed, but > have lost their > liberty. By your own defintion it is not barbaric. There is nothing in what you said that was not barbaric. Whether you feed or clothe someone who is stuck in a cage, they are still stuck in a cage. If they aren't a physical threat to others, and if being in that cage has no effect on the person but to cage them, then it is barbarism, punishment for the sake of punishment. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent value of >> punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for prison to be a deterrent >> the criminal must be completely rational *at the time* the crime is >> committed. However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) >> and operates under both a limited understanding of future events (the >> "bounded rationality model") and an unrealistically enhanced view of >> their own success (called the "subjective expected utility model") when >> committing the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a >> deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the >> criminals. > > 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*. > SOme cases of murder and assault are the result of a set of circumstances > gettting out of hand and a loss of rational thought. That is not at all > the case with white collar crimes. These are actions that result from > careful planning. Not all white collar crimes are the result of careful planning. They are the result of impulsive behavior that sets into effect a chain of events, each of which requires some action by the person to either end the chain, cover up their actions or, in the worst case, face the consequences when they're found out. To think that white collar crimes are meticulously thought out or even thought out to a great extent is to believe in myths. >> Additionally, the low likelihood of being *caught*, let alone enough >> evidence being collected to get an indictment, a conviction or of any >> time being served in prison makes the claim of prison being a deterrent >> even *less* supported by actual fact. "Criminals view punishment as a >> probability and not a certainty" (from "Social Factors Cause Crimes", pg >> 20) is quite clearly a statement that shows the deterrence value of >> prison to be so limited as to be practically worthless in reality. > > Sure, some people expect to get away with their crimes. That is why part > of the deal is public exposure, so that the public knows that there has > been a crime > and that someone has been charged/ convicted / sentenced. There is no > deterrent if people simply pay a fine as if it were some sort of hush > money, or if they suddenly disappear from th streets and no one knows > where they have gone or why. The problem you're having is thinking that punishment *is* a deterrent. I never said that paying a fine was a deterrent any more than going to jail is a deterrent. I said that paying a fine was *appropriate* given the crime Martha Stewart committed; i.e., her's wasn't violent so sending her to jail is barbaric. There's no such thing as a deterrent that doesn't involve the use of force to attempt to physically *prevent* crimes from happening. >> I could go on, but I should spend more time on actually writing the >> research paper rather than putting snippets of my sources here. <g> > > I can understand the <g> grin. It sounds liek your "research is a bit of > a joke. How very presumptuous of you. You're quite wrong, however. Why do you assume that it's "a bit of a joke"? >> >> No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. >> >> What gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the >> >> *investor community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers. >> > >> > Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from the citizens of >> > the country, and they are taxpayers. Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers. >> >> *Everybody* is a tax payer, but not everybody is affected by illegal >> stock dealings. Prison time for stock fraud punishes *everyone* while the >> stock fraud only harms a *few*, and those few are now being punished >> *more* by having to foot the bill for the jailtime served which will have >> no *effect*. > > Not everyone is affected by a murder, an assault or a theft either. They > are just members of the general public. They all expect the criminal > justice system to protect all of us from criminals. You are not protected from anything by the government, sorry to say. The government *cannot* protect you *from* crime unless it became a tyranny. It can only *prohibit* actions and then *punish* those who commit those acts. > That is part of being > part of a civilized society. We have given up on individual acts of > revenge in return for having a set of lawas which have been enacted and > enforced by our government. And I'm saying that the punishment handed out in accordance with those laws is barbaric when it comes to non-violent offenders. What made you think I was debating the law when I've been talking *solely* about punishment? >> > On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that >> > jail time is not a deterrent. >> >> How do I prove a negative? Give me an example, please. (hint: the onus is >> on those who claim prison *is* a deterrent to show it is such) > > For a start, you could try using your noodle for something other than a > hat > rack. Why the attempted personal insults? Between your insinuations that I'm being untruthful about my paper and research to your need to use ad hominem, I wonder... > Jail is not a great place to be. Most of us realize that. Why do you think I call it barbaric to put a non-violent offender into jail? > We > realize that breaking certain laws can result in our being sentenced to a > jail term, so we > refrain from committing those crimes. Do we? Or do *we* (non-criminals) not commit crimes for reasons *other* than "I don't want to go to jail"? And do those who commit crimes do so because they think "I'll never get caught"? Are you a law-abiding citizen because you're afraid of jail or for some other reason? Please answer that question for me. > Granted, some people like jail Some > homeless people have been known to commit petty crimes in order to be > taken in > to a place where there is shelter and food. Obviously, they are few and > far between. And are yet *another* example of prison not being any form of deterrent. >> > It is for me. I can think of lots of things that >> > I would do >> > (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to an including jail >> > time. >> >> So the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of punishment? You must >> be a delight to be around. > > I was referring to victimless crimes. They don't hurt anyone. There are > states in the US where certain sex acts are illegal. Oral or anal sex > could get you a > jail term, even when it takes place between consenting adults. Pot > smoking > hurts no one, ut can get you a jail term. A lot of people would love to > smoke pot, but are not willing to take the chance because they might get > caught and end up in jail. And I, again, ask you, is the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of punishment? Or is there some other reason why you are civil? This seems to go to the heart of your assertion that prison is a deterrent. It sounds like you're a law-abiding citizen for *other* reasons and that it's not deterrence that's making you that way. >> > I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had photo >> > radar. His company paid his fines for him and they didn't go on his >> > driving record. He could well afford the penalty, so it wasn't a >> > deterrent. >> >> He faced no penalty, so he committed the crimes. How do you think such >> proves me wrong, exactly? I've been saying that the threat of punishment >> does *not* deter from committing crimes. You just explained a situation >> where someone does *not* face any threat of punishment and he continues >> to commit a crime. What's the point there? > > There was a threat of punishment. His company paid his fines. He owns the > company. It cuts into company profits, but it gets written off. It's > peanuts to him personally. It is still a form of punishment, but the > impact upon him is minimal, so it does not have a deterrent effect. As I said, it's not a penalty to him. He's not losing anything in doing it. So, I again ask you, of what relevance is the story to my statement that the threat of prison is not a deterrent to criminals? >> >> And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." >> >> That he still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away >> >> 90% of his incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's >> >> case, his worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him >> >> dramatically. >> > >> > And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his worth he would >> > be down to a paltry $3.7 million. That still isn't going to make it >> > hard for him to put food on the table or send the kids to summer camp. >> >> And who said it *had* to? But, you've now taken him from 30.7 BILLION to >> 3.7 MILLION (your math is wrong, since it would be 370 million) and are >> trying to argue that we've not significantly affected his life because he >> has more money than us? Is that *really* your point? > > Oops, you're right, My math was wrong. We left him with $370 million. I > magine how he is going to have to scrimp and save to get by with only $370 > million. If I were fined 90% of my worth, I would be in the poor house. And you're again missing the point. Who *cares* how his life compares to yours, that's immaterial to the point that *his* life has been changed. Whether it's still better than yours or not is irrelevant to the fact that *his* life is now changed. >> So would a hefty fine, and that *without* further punishment of making >> the taxpayers pay for the criminals punishment. And, of that "lasting >> impression" what do you think will happen? That he will suddenly stop >> committing crimes? Again, I'll point you to the recidivism statistics to >> show that that doesn't happen either. > > Who said anything about jail time only? I could do a stretch in prison > for a few million dollars that I can get at when I get out. You seem to be stuck in viewing his money from *your* financial standpoint. Try viewing it from his. >> It all boils down to jail being nothing more than a punishment, pure and >> simple. It's not a deterrent, since crime rates haven't dropped and the >> prison population continues to grow. > > ?????? It isn't that simple. It most certainly is. If the fear of prison were a deterrent then crime rates would go *down*. They *don't*. > Look at what people are in jail for. In > the US, a huge percentage of inmates are in there for drug charges. So? If the fear of jail were a deterrent then it would have a quantifiable effect; we would see a marked decrease in crime rates. But, we don't. We see an *increase* in crime rates. That's quite indicative of your assertion being *wrong*. > A lot > of them are from poor backgrounds where the drug trade was a chance to > make better money > than they could get flipping burgers. So, they weren't deterred by the threat of prison. Thank you for again proving my point. > Look at crime rates in less > civilized countries where there is no law and order. If there is no law and order, there is no fear of prison, so I don't see how that has any bearing on this thread. Care to explain how it relates to this? >> It's not rehabilitating since >> recidivism rates are high. It's nothing more than punishment, pure and >> simple. > > Yet, some people are still afraid to do things that might land them in > jail .... that is deterrent. Can you cite a reference to the number of people, or are they hypothetical? >> >> I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only >> >> occurs in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not >> >> all, criminals feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion >> >> about prison time as a deterrant is a fantasy. >> > >> > That is because so many people get away with these types of crimes. >> >> And your theoretical deterrency value of prison just went out the window. > > I don't think so. It just means that those people were not deterred. And your claim is that prison *is* a deterrent, while you're now telling me that it's not but trying to wave that away. > It is > hard to say how many others were deterred. Then how can you claim *any* are deterred in any number sufficient to claim that, on the whole, prison is a deterrent? >> >> > Jail is barbaric? >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >> > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is >> >> > barbaric. >> >> >> >> No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's >> >> not barbaric. >> > >> > You might want to look up the definition of barbaric. >> >> "[P]ossessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than >> primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization" >> (from Merriam Webster). Throwing everybody who commits a crime into a >> 6'x9' cell for 23 hours a day is most definitely barbaric. Threat to >> others? Thrown in a cell. Stole a wallet? Thrown in a cell. Stole >> investment money? Thrown in a cell. Had an ounce of pot? Thrown in a >> cell. Had too many traffic tickets? Thrown in a cell. That's only a >> single step above the more savage act of cutting off the hand of a thief >> or the penis of an adulterer. It's hardly sophisticated and doesn't do >> anything more than exact a measure of punishment that is of little effect >> on the criminal. > > Oddly, those are the actions of an advanced society. Doling out the same punishment for every crime is your idea of an advanced society? > There is a code of > jutsice that defines certain activities as illegal and punishable by jail > sentences. You're assuming your conclusion in adding the "punishable by jail sentences" part. Why do you think jail is an enlightened punishment? > Prisoners are treated humanely. They are fed and housed, but > have lost their > liberty. By your own defintion it is not barbaric. There is nothing in what you said that was not barbaric. Whether you feed or clothe someone who is stuck in a cage, they are still stuck in a cage. If they aren't a physical threat to others, and if being in that cage has no effect on the person but to cage them, then it is barbarism, punishment for the sake of punishment. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
In rec.food.cooking John Gaughan > wrote:
> Wow, the suffering. Just think, I worry about putting enough food on the > table not to starve my family. Yes, Martha's "empire" dipping in value > must be difficult. Maybe she will have to fire her servants or go > without the personal chef. That's a pretty lousy thing to happen for those who work for Martha Stewart though. There are a lot of hard-working people who depend on that woman for their livelihood. It would be unfortunate if they had to suffer because of the actions of her boss. > I am the only male in my immediate family that is not a convicted felon. > I would say "person," but my mother is not a felon although my sisters > have both spent time in the county jail. Ugh! What a family! > I also live on a military installation that has a federal prison camp > (non-violent convicts, i.e. tax evaders, embezzlers, and the like). They > are out all the time mowing the lawns, trimmin, edging, pulling weeds, > etc. Better them than me :-) Maybe you'll get to see Martha out mowing the lawn. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
In rec.food.cooking John Gaughan > wrote:
> Wow, the suffering. Just think, I worry about putting enough food on the > table not to starve my family. Yes, Martha's "empire" dipping in value > must be difficult. Maybe she will have to fire her servants or go > without the personal chef. That's a pretty lousy thing to happen for those who work for Martha Stewart though. There are a lot of hard-working people who depend on that woman for their livelihood. It would be unfortunate if they had to suffer because of the actions of her boss. > I am the only male in my immediate family that is not a convicted felon. > I would say "person," but my mother is not a felon although my sisters > have both spent time in the county jail. Ugh! What a family! > I also live on a military installation that has a federal prison camp > (non-violent convicts, i.e. tax evaders, embezzlers, and the like). They > are out all the time mowing the lawns, trimmin, edging, pulling weeds, > etc. Better them than me :-) Maybe you'll get to see Martha out mowing the lawn. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
John Gaughan > wrote:
> Jack Nichols wrote: >> Now George W. Bush is President, promising a new era of >> corporate responsibility symbolized by Martha Stewart's >> ruin. Such is justice in the age of irony. > A Republican, promising corporate responsibility? Do you actually > believe this? This is just a lie to gain respect from the little people, > who outnumber the "important" people and as a group have more votes. The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being purpetrated on the public by the Securities & Exchange Commission. MS did nothing that no one else would have done, and has done. She was not involved in insider trading and she defrauded no one. The SEC is using MS to divert the public's attention against the real corportate theives who have ripped off the life savings of many hard working individuals. This is really obvious by the fact that the SEC tried to nab Martha Steward on securities fraud, which the judge said was completely bogus. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
John Gaughan > wrote:
> Jack Nichols wrote: >> Now George W. Bush is President, promising a new era of >> corporate responsibility symbolized by Martha Stewart's >> ruin. Such is justice in the age of irony. > A Republican, promising corporate responsibility? Do you actually > believe this? This is just a lie to gain respect from the little people, > who outnumber the "important" people and as a group have more votes. The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being purpetrated on the public by the Securities & Exchange Commission. MS did nothing that no one else would have done, and has done. She was not involved in insider trading and she defrauded no one. The SEC is using MS to divert the public's attention against the real corportate theives who have ripped off the life savings of many hard working individuals. This is really obvious by the fact that the SEC tried to nab Martha Steward on securities fraud, which the judge said was completely bogus. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith > wrote:
> Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train people so > that they can find meaningful employment so that they can find a way to support > themselves without having to resort to crime. Martha has job skills. I don't > think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, so she > can easily afford to pay a fine. I think a little jail time is called for. Not me. My tax dollars can be spent in much better ways. The solution is simple. The fine should be higher. The fine should be of sufficient magnitude to make Martha Stewart feel the financial pain. The same is true of all white collar crimes. Make the crimes cost more than it would to do business honestly and you'll see corporate malfeasance become a rarity. > Consider that the US has laws to seize property and assets obtained though > crime. I have read stories of old people losing their farms because someone > grew a little bit of pot in the back 40 without their knowledge. In this case, > she would be paying a fine out of the money that she made through illegal stock > deals. Martha Steward reportedly made $50K off that imclone stock deal. Make the fine $5 million and it sure would be a huge disincentive to others who might commit a white collar crime. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith > wrote:
> Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train people so > that they can find meaningful employment so that they can find a way to support > themselves without having to resort to crime. Martha has job skills. I don't > think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, so she > can easily afford to pay a fine. I think a little jail time is called for. Not me. My tax dollars can be spent in much better ways. The solution is simple. The fine should be higher. The fine should be of sufficient magnitude to make Martha Stewart feel the financial pain. The same is true of all white collar crimes. Make the crimes cost more than it would to do business honestly and you'll see corporate malfeasance become a rarity. > Consider that the US has laws to seize property and assets obtained though > crime. I have read stories of old people losing their farms because someone > grew a little bit of pot in the back 40 without their knowledge. In this case, > she would be paying a fine out of the money that she made through illegal stock > deals. Martha Steward reportedly made $50K off that imclone stock deal. Make the fine $5 million and it sure would be a huge disincentive to others who might commit a white collar crime. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > Dave Smith wrote: > > >> I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent value of > >> punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for prison to be a deterrent > >> the criminal must be completely rational *at the time* the crime is > >> committed. However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) > >> and operates under both a limited understanding of future events (the > >> "bounded rationality model") and an unrealistically enhanced view of > >> their own success (called the "subjective expected utility model") when > >> committing the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a > >> deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the > >> criminals. > > > > 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. 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? 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. 2) I have known several people who believed that using recreational drugs was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of imprisonment. 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. Peter Aitken |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > Dave Smith wrote: > > >> I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent value of > >> punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for prison to be a deterrent > >> the criminal must be completely rational *at the time* the crime is > >> committed. However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) > >> and operates under both a limited understanding of future events (the > >> "bounded rationality model") and an unrealistically enhanced view of > >> their own success (called the "subjective expected utility model") when > >> committing the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a > >> deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the > >> criminals. > > > > 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. 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? 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. 2) I have known several people who believed that using recreational drugs was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of imprisonment. 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. Peter Aitken |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Darryl L. Pierce > wrote:
> You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail time is not a deterrant. > It never has been and it never will be. Exactly. The fact that the United States has the most people locked up in jail, while also having the highest rate of violent crime just screams loud and clear that jail is not a deterant. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Darryl L. Pierce > wrote:
> You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail time is not a deterrant. > It never has been and it never will be. Exactly. The fact that the United States has the most people locked up in jail, while also having the highest rate of violent crime just screams loud and clear that jail is not a deterant. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:
> Correct. I'm against the death penalty, not because of any kindness of my > heart, just that it actually cost the taxpayers more to go through the > appeals process and legal BS than it does to just keep themin prison for > life. If we eliminated all the legal fluff and just execuste the same day as > the sentence is handed down, it would save a bundle. It would also result in innocent people being executed. Just ask any of those who were freed from death row after being there for years, but who would have been killed in your warped "system of justice." The best way to deal with crime is to prevent it. Punishment always takes place AFTER the fact so it cannot possibly prevent the crime from having occurred in the first place. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:
> Correct. I'm against the death penalty, not because of any kindness of my > heart, just that it actually cost the taxpayers more to go through the > appeals process and legal BS than it does to just keep themin prison for > life. If we eliminated all the legal fluff and just execuste the same day as > the sentence is handed down, it would save a bundle. It would also result in innocent people being executed. Just ask any of those who were freed from death row after being there for years, but who would have been killed in your warped "system of justice." The best way to deal with crime is to prevent it. Punishment always takes place AFTER the fact so it cannot possibly prevent the crime from having occurred in the first place. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
In rec.food.cooking Earl > wrote:
> What you saw was the "lying under oath/tampering with evidence" > trial. Moral of story -- don't tamper with evidence or lie, no > matter what liberal Democrats did to excuse Bill. Or what conservative Republicans are doing to excuse Bush/Cheney. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
In rec.food.cooking Earl > wrote:
> What you saw was the "lying under oath/tampering with evidence" > trial. Moral of story -- don't tamper with evidence or lie, no > matter what liberal Democrats did to excuse Bill. Or what conservative Republicans are doing to excuse Bush/Cheney. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
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. > 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. > 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? > 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? > 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. And, point out one person who was deterred does not make it generally a deterrent. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
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. > 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. > 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? > 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? > 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. And, point out one person who was deterred does not make it generally a deterrent. -- |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
