Crime and Punishment

You say that like it's a good thing.

I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I do know it's debatable whether or not it is a religion, as it does not posit the existence of a god. This certainly makes it more possibly correct and useful than any [other] religion, IMO.

Buddhists certainly seem to do fewer bad things in the name of religion than do any other large sects, so I would say it is good that it exists.

Nah you were right on the resources. It would be cheaper to simply chop everyone's arms and legs off. You can't commit a violent crime when all you can do is wriggle about after all, can you??😀

Reminds me of when Baldrick's mother suggested he solve the problem of his low ceilings by cutting off his head.

I'm sure you've also considered how some people get convicted of violent crimes due to mistaken identity, so is your preventative solution to an innocent person getting a life term for a violent act that they didn't commit is to have every person GPS-chipped and cameras mounted everywhere any person could possibly go, you know, in the name of freedom?

Of course I know that an innocent person is occasionally convicted of a crime under our current system, and there still would be under my system. I don't generally have much problem with increased surveillance measures, but I don't think that is logically connected to the system of punishment. I've never said my suggestions had anything to do with personal freedoms.

There wasn't a value judgement there, just merely highlighting the significance of the idea.

By occasional, how often do you think it happens?

Well, you want people to be free to roam around and not fear a violent criminal, so how much of your personal freedoms are you willing to sacrifice for that, especially considering you don't want to be put in jail for life because you were convicted of a violent crime you didn't commit and increased surveillance would prevent that?

Also, I think chillrob underestimates how many people he would need to lock up. As soon as you lock away all the current robbers, they are replaced by a whole new set of robbers who weren't able to operate with the old lot around. Lather, rinse, repeat. This is exactly what currently happens with drug dealers.

I think an innocent person is convicted and imprisoned far less often than a guilty person is aquitted and goes free.
I do not know any precise numbers (nor does anyone). I think the current rate of error is acceptable, but of course fewer errors would be better.

My argument has nothing to do with freedom to roam or freedom from fear, simply with prevention of violent crime.

I don't personally change my behavior in any way due to fear of being convicted of a violent crime I didn't commit, and if the punishment for such crimes were increased, I still doubt I would change any of my behaviors.

I really don't see any significant connection between my proposal and increased surveillance, so you're going to have to clarify things if you actually do want me to be able to give a reasonable answer.

I would love to hear actual reasons you or anyone else has for opposing my plan other than those already mentioned, which I have addressed.

We posted pretty much at the same time, but see my post above the quoted one.

You don't think the deterrent factor would increase when the system was put into practice?

I don't see how the current robbers prevent others from taking up robbery.

I also don't consider most simple robbery to fall under my definition of a violent crime, but I admit I am not clear on the official definition(s) of robbery.

Robbery is a violent crime by definition, one of the elements of that crime is the threat of immediate physical harm or actual harm to the victim. I'm not sure what you mean by "simple robbery" - like passing a note to a bank teller? That's called unarmed robbery, and it's an immediate threat of harm.

As with any hierarchy in the criminal underworld, it is enforced through violence. Once you get rid of the people enforcing it, the next level rises up to take their place.

So you're saying it's acceptable that an innocent goes to prison so long as it prevents a guilty from walking? I'm going to guess that's all fine and dandy until it's your innocent ass on the line, eh?

If we peel the onion back, the reason you want to prevent violent crime is for what reason, if it's not to allow people the freedom to go about their way without being assaulted or fearing being assaulted?

Are you telling me you think there are lots of people who would become violent criminals if not for the threat of current violent criminals harming them? I have never heard of such a thing so it certainly wouldn't have stopped me.

How does an unarmed person passing a note to a bank teller amount to an immediate threat of harm?

Regardless, I wasn't meaning to give a life sentence to those who merely threatened violence, only those who actually committed violent crimes. There are threats made every day by lots of people who have no real intention to carry them out, or who think better of it before following through.

I also wouldn't extend the punishment to what I consider to be minor acts of violence which may currently be considered misdemeanors, such as fistfights.

Do you accept that innocent people are occasionally convicted under the current system? And that it could possibly be you who is mistakenly convicted?
I have never been accused of a violent crime in the past, and I see no reason why it would be more likely to happen under a system of harsher punishments.

Do you not like the idea of preventing violent crime for its own sake?

Nothing you are asking about would be different under my system than under the current system, so I see no relevance to these questions.

If you're replying to me, I'm not sure how you construed this from my post.

How does someone pointing an unloaded gun to your face and demanding money amount to an immediate threat of harm?

Lots of people have died from a single first punch, but that's okay because it's a fistfight, eh?

Spot on. It's ineveitable when it's crimes like drugs.

There's only way to stop that violence and that's to make the trade peaceful

I didn't say it would be more likely. It's obvious that if some act of violence that comes with a 2-year sentence today changes to a life sentence tomorrow, then all would want the system to be near-100% sure they have the right person, hence why I brought up tracking people as the only logical step.

These replies were addressing things said by d2, not you.

He mentioned an unarmed person passing a note to a bank teller, not putting a gun in someone's face.

I don't know what you consider 'lots', but you're being ridiculous with your fistfight claim, obviously that is extremely rare.

Are you saying you think life imprisonment should be extended to people involved in fistfights as well?

That is not at all obvious or logical to me.

I believe most people (including myself) already want the system to be as close to 100% fair and accurate as is feasible.

I generally agree with this as well. And if it is implemented, we will end up with a lot of extra space in our nation's prisons.

How does the bank teller know the person passing a note is not armed? How do you know the pistol being held to your head is loaded?

In both cases, there is an immediate threat of harm.

As for fistfights, you're the person that wants to put people in prison for life for violent acts and fistfights are violent acts, so don't put that on me.

Sure they do, but you really don't get that if you change a 2-year sentence to a life sentence for the same offence that it makes it that more important to ensure the correct person is put away?