Now they target customers at the counter

[dontcatchmany]

In the 1970s I worked for about 5 years in the information technology area of the North Carolina Correctional System.

My office was in front of Central Prison.

One project I did during my tenure there was to design a system to automate inmate classifications so that they could be sent to the proper penal institution throughout the state.

Part of that was a period of about 3 months where I sat in on the manual process of officials deciding which institution the prisoners coming in from county courts were to be spending their time.

During that time several hundred inmates were interviewed by officials. Not once did an inmate admit their guilt in any manner. One inmate was caught jumping up and down on his victims head after he had stabbed the victim over 30 times. The head was unrecognizable as a human head. All of the inmates were brought in with hands and feet shackled and by heavily armed guards.

I learned that those people were totally different mentally than normal people. They just did not process information that same way as functional citizens. Some had genius IQs, some were classified as idiots. None felt any remorse or guilt for their crimes. They were different.

There are many out on the streets who are like that and who have not been caught yet or are out after serving their time or who have not stepped into their criminal potential.

[Deaf Smith]

Confinement can serve to sequester, but I wouldn't put too much stock in the value of punishment as a deterrent.

But there is always the Prison of no Parole. As in dead. That tends to stop the recidivism 100 percent.

Deaf

[Lohman446]

Pretty hard to know how many people were deterred from committing a crime when we focus only on those that were not. Kind of a poorly designed study when we use only those that were not deterred as our sample

[Rachen]

In the 1970s I worked for about 5 years in the information technology area of the North Carolina Correctional System.

My office was in front of Central Prison.

One project I did during my tenure there was to design a system to automate inmate classifications so that they could be sent to the proper penal institution throughout the state.

Part of that was a period of about 3 months where I sat in on the manual process of officials deciding which institution the prisoners coming in from county courts were to be spending their time.

During that time several hundred inmates were interviewed by officials. Not once did an inmate admit their guilt in any manner. One inmate was caught jumping up and down on his victims head after he had stabbed the victim over 30 times. The head was unrecognizable as a human head. All of the inmates were brought in with hands and feet shackled and by heavily armed guards.

I learned that those people were totally different mentally than normal people. They just did not process information that same way as functional citizens. Some had genius IQs, some were classified as idiots. None felt any remorse or guilt for their crimes. They were different.

There are many out on the streets who are like that and who have not been caught yet or are out after serving their time or who have not stepped into their criminal potential.

There are some really scary sociopathic types out there. The ones that really send shivers up the collective spines of the public are those who cannot understand or realize why harming or killing people is wrong. There was a jailhouse interview conducted by an ABC reporter with Charles Manson about whether he ever considered remorse or guilt about the Tate-LaBianca murders, or if he cared at all. His reply was "Care? What the **** does that mean, care?" That interview was in the 90s I think.

It is this type of thing that caused the entire world's newspapers to go ablaze when Manson was reported to have died after being admitted to a hospital in Cali. It is also why movies like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre still remains a cult favorite and people still flock to "Kosciusko" in Texas because that is where, allegedly, the legend of Leatherface started. And speaking of those who have not stepped into their full criminal potential, the streets, are, unfortunately, FILLED with them. Work enough late night trucking shifts or retail and you will see them sure enough. Many people think it is funny and entertaining when Marilyn Manson bit off the head of a live bat on stage or GG Allen defecated on stage then rubbed himself in his own feces and threw it into the crowd, but we are truly lucky these guys didn't choose an alternate path of living out their bizarre fantasies. GG Allen once said that he planned to exit this world in a final concert where he would bring in a .45 and kill as many people in the audience as possible. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for the rest of the world, that creep OD'ed on heroin in Brooklyn shortly after his final concert in 1993.

[shurshot]

As others have pointed out, criminals don't THINK. They act, often out of raw emotion. They didn't and don't have good plans in life, hence their current situations. Most of us plan our lives out, Vocational training, College, small buisness, careers, Trades, 401K plans, Pensions, insurance, property, vacations, familys, etc. We PLAN to not only sustain, but for our future, and that of our offspring. We have goals, long and short term. Criminals goals consist of the "Big Score", and the next "High". They live expecting entitlements. They rarely use their minds, at least for pro social objectives. They don't THINK, either due to chemical dependency, cognitive limitations, lack of maturity or a combination of the aforementioned. They are indeed different... very different. Poor planning in life can lead to desperation. Desperate people do desperate things. We, as law abiding members of society can only accept this as reality and plan accordingly.

[Lohman446]

I think we are making a major logical error in this discussion.

The question being asked at this point seems to be if the deterrent effect of our criminal justice system is effective particularly in regards to violent crime.

We are proposing as our only evidence the cases in which it was not effective. This obviously leads us to the conclusion it is not effective.

We are not including those individuals who considered committing a violent crime, were deterred by the criminal justice system, and chose to not commit the violent crime.

We are creating our own card-stacking argument by not using a representative sample of the entire population but instead only using a segment that, by it's very definition, are likely to skew our answers.

We need to know not just if violet criminals were deterred (they obviously were not) but if those who would have been criminals but were not were (they were).

[OldMarksman]

The question being asked at this point seems to be if the deterrent effect of our criminal justice system is effective particularly in regards to violent crime.

That is one question.

We are proposing as our only evidence the cases in which it was not effective. This obviously leads us to the conclusion it is not effective.

Not sure what you are getting at. There is a system of detection, apprehension, trial, and punishment. And there is a lot of violent crime.

The system is, therefore, obviously much less effective than we would like it to be.

We are not including those individuals who considered committing a violent crime, were deterred by the criminal justice system, and chose to not commit the violent crime.

What do you mean? We do have a pretty good idea about the number of people who do not commit crime, or at least of those who are not charged. What good would it do for us to know, or guess, how many of those people might have considered committing crimes, or why they elected to not do so?

We need to know not just if violet criminals were deterred (they obviously were not) but if those who would have been criminals but were not were (they were).

Why?

[Lohman446]

Let's assume that 90% of the population would commit violent crimes if not for the deterrent effect of the criminal justice system.

Let's assume about 10% do and are found guilty (I don't know the actual number though it could probably be found). Of course there is a number who are guilty and not tried / convicted / caught.

Our discussion seems to be concentrating on the 10%. If we only sample the 10% and do not consider the 80% it looks much worse and ineffective than it is. If we have an 80% deterrent rate we are doing pretty good. Of course better would be nice but perfect is impossible too.

[OldMarksman]

If we have an 80% deterrent rate we are doing pretty good

By what standard?

[Lohman446]

Let me rephrase. Accepting that 100% deterrence is impossible what is a good rate? My point is on this conversation if we concentrate only on failed deterrence and do not consider effective deterrence by only considering the sample from the failed side we don't even know what we are discussing.

[OldMarksman]

Accepting that 100% deterrence is impossible what is a good rate?

No one cares about the success rate of deterrence. What is important is the crime rate, and the public decides what is acceptable.

My point is on this conversation if we concentrate only on failed deterrence and do not consider effective deterrence by only considering the sample from the failed side we don't even know what we are discussing.

Of course we do.

Why would you suggest spending time evaluating the reasons why the people who do not commit crimes do not do so? What would you learn from that? What would you do with that information?

That a system of punishment is not a very effective deterrent can be deadly determined by assessing the crime rate.

But there is more to be determined.

is it ineffective because the miscreants do not believe that they will be caught?

It is ineffective because of the length of time between act and consequence? Patting a bird dog on thread at the end of a season will not reinforce good performance.

Is it because sentences are too light?

Suppose we find that there are some people who will not be deterred no matter what the potential consequences. What would we do with that information?

I any case, all of that information can be gleaned from criminals, and there is no reason to study the millions and millions of people who do not commit crimes and to ask them to speculate on what effect the possibility of punishment might have on their behavior.

[Lohman446]

I any case, all of that information can be gleaned from criminals, and there is no reason to study the millions and millions of people who do not commit crimes and to ask them to speculate on what effect the possibility of punishment might have on their behavior.

Sure it does. What if a large majority say the possibility of punishment had no impact on their decision? Then we need to discuss what does have the greatest impact and how to implement it into society.

[OldMarksman]

What if a large majority [of those who do not commit crimes] say the possibility of punishment had no impact on their decision? Then we need to discuss what does have the greatest impact and how to implement it into society.

I am certain that that is what the majority would say.

What next?

Suppose we "discuss" that happiness, for example, has the "greatest impact". How on Earth would we "implement it into society"?

On the other hand, if we assess why criminals were not deterred by the possibility by punishment, we may be able to come up with a more effective system of punishment.

And we may find ourselves relying more on sequestration and less on deterrence.

[K_Mac]

OldMarksman I'm not sure happiness is the answer, but figuring out how to stop the cycle that creates criminals and violence is. We have more people incarcerated per capita in this country than any developed nation on earth. That ain't working.

I don't think we can discuss the issues that contribute to the prevailing violence in our nation here. The socioeconomic factors at play are not going to be solved on a firearms website. I will say I am always surprised by the 'lock em up and throw away the key' philosophy that many like to spew in regard to offenders of all kinds. While I agree there are some crimes that are so egregious that those who commit them should never be allowed to interact with free people, disposing of folks who may just need some help is not conducive to a free society, and it has never worked for any government long-term.

[Xd45owner]

Wow! Criminals are getting more brazen or stupid whichever. Things seem to be getting out of hand in SE Alabama and West Georgia too

[dannyb]

There is an old saying in industry that you can have it good, fast, cheap... pick 2. That is a solid part of the argument here. You can have it good and fast, ie you can have an arrested criminal tried with all rights preserved and a multitude of investigators and litigators etc. to make sure that the evidence is gathered and adequately processed quickly, but it won't be cheap by any means. You can have a fast and cheap system like the black laws of England with its parade of hangings at Tyburn and its even bigger parade of populating colonies with those whose sentences were commuted to transportation; but I don't think that executing people for property crime will fly today no matter how romantic it sounds. And finally we have good and relatively cheap, something like we actually do have. Most criminals plead, the budget is spared the expense of trials, and an overloaded system chugs away. It's not the best, but it's certainly not the worst either.