Should Felons be Allowed to Vote? Florida to Have Referendum

[Annihitor the Incred]

And the other part, the one that will remain through all support and mollycoddling? The one that caused criminal behavior in the first place? It remains.

And what would that be?

Behavior patterns that lead to criminal acts. Everyone has some Freudian excuse, but some choose to actively spread misery. No treatment will correct that. The next time a killer commits the same crime after being "cured", consider that perhaps no cure exists.

[San Lumen]

And what would that be?

Behavior patterns that lead to criminal acts. Everyone has some Freudian excuse, but some choose to actively spread misery. No treatment will correct that. The next time a killer commits the same crime after being "cured", consider that perhaps no cure exists.

Norway doesnt have a high rate of recidivism nor does the Netherlands. In fact they are closing prisons for lack inmates.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Behavior patterns that lead to criminal acts. Everyone has some Freudian excuse, but some choose to actively spread misery. No treatment will correct that. The next time a killer commits the same crime after being "cured", consider that perhaps no cure exists.

Norway doesnt have a high rate of recidivism nor does the Netherlands. In fact they are closing prisons for lack inmates.

20% being considered low is a testament to how normalized crime has become. Out of the 4000 prisoners, 800 will commit crime again, some of them murders.

Statistics are so bland, it is easy to forget the reality behind them.

[Jebslund]

Norway doesnt have a high rate of recidivism nor does the Netherlands. In fact they are closing prisons for lack inmates.

20% being considered low is a testament to how normalized crime has become. Out of the 4000 prisoners, 800 will commit crime again, some of them murders.

Statistics are so bland, it is easy to forget the reality behind them.

Wasn't it you who said 95% was better than 35%?

[Annihitor the Incred]

20% being considered low is a testament to how normalized crime has become. Out of the 4000 prisoners, 800 will commit crime again, some of them murders.

Statistics are so bland, it is easy to forget the reality behind them.

Wasn't it you who said 95% was better than 35%?

Yes. Much better. Your point?

[Jebslund]

Wasn't it you who said 95% was better than 35%?

Yes. Much better. Your point?

Then the way Norway's doing things can't be that bad. That works out to a little over an 80% reform rate, by those numbers.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Yes. Much better. Your point?

Then the way Norway's doing things can't be that bad.

Can't be that good either. In any other circumstance, a 20% failure rate is cause for correction. 1/5 contracts broken, 1/5 goods stolen, 1/5 cars crash. Here? Best result ever.

[San Lumen]

Then the way Norway's doing things can't be that bad.

Can't be that good either. In any other circumstance, a 20% failure rate is cause for correction. 1/5 contracts broken, 1/5 goods stolen, 1/5 cars crash. Here? Best result ever.

Your never going to eliminate all crime. Its simply not possible

[Annihitor the Incred]

Can't be that good either. In any other circumstance, a 20% failure rate is cause for correction. 1/5 contracts broken, 1/5 goods stolen, 1/5 cars crash. Here? Best result ever.

Your never going to eliminate all crime. Its simply not possible

But surely expecting 1/5 of criminals to commit again, and still letting them go as one, will get you nowhere closer.

Punish every one proportionally, and you will remove the most dangerous ones while teaching the lesser ones a correspondingly milder but stern lesson. That is proportionality.

[Jebslund]

Then the way Norway's doing things can't be that bad.

Can't be that good either. In any other circumstance, a 20% failure rate is cause for correction. 1/5 contracts broken, 1/5 goods stolen, 1/5 cars crash. Here? Best result ever.

Certainly better than a system which MIGHT see 95% reductions in a few types of crime, and will see *worse* failures where it does fail. See, the only way your vengeance-based system would work on minor crime is by meting out disproportionate punishment for it, as minor crimes would beget minor punishments. Even moderate crime would only beget moderate punishment, which would only work about half the time, and even that depends solely on how much incentive there is to go straight vs how much profit there is in the crime. Just like overly strict parents tend to create more rebels, often craftier than those of too-lenient households, an overly strict government will lead only to *more* crime that is better hidden. Deny people their daily bread, and they will find ways to sneak it. Punish them for sneaking it, and you only teach them to improve their sneaking. Few people will willingly starve to death just because someone orders them to. You may see a sharp drop in serious crimes and in crimes with little to no profits, but that's about it.

Another thing: It will do little to nothing for crimes of passion/impulse crimes. The problem with a vengeance-based system, rather than a risk-based system, is that it relies on impulse control and risk/benefit analysis. Someone who lacks impulse control, or who is not in a state of mind to perform such an analysis, would not *care* about the consequences. They're not planning the crime in advance. They're doing it as the opportunity arises. Crimes of entitlement, as well, would have increased recidivism, as those criminals would see things as their tyrannical government denying them what they are owed. Again, you would need to mete out disproportionate retribution in order to do anything other than reinforce the criminal behavior.

Also like to point out that a batter is considered good at his job if he can hit the ball 1/3 times it is pitched to him. Contraception is considered effective if it fails 25% of the time, and airbags are considered effective to the point of being a must-have item in vehicles despite only reducing accident fatalities by 30%.