A New York judge sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to fatally shoving an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach onto a Manhattan sidewalk to six months more in prison than the eight years that had been previously reached in a plea deal.

  • bobman@unilem.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think that punishment is a deterrent for bad behavior and it’s sad such a thing even needs to be discussed.

    The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.

    • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US has more people in prison as a proportion of the population than almost anywhere else, and notoriously harsh prisons by developed world standards. We also have some of the highest crime rates among developed countries, so it would seem that maybe punishment isn’t that great a deterrent.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry, I’ve had this argument before.

        Do you think that the only difference between the US and other developed nations that has an impact on crime is the rate of imprisonment?

        • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re right, punishment is only one of very many factors. Thanks for making my argument for me.

    • idiomaddict@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      So in your mind, we punish a criminal mostly/exclusively for the benefit of other citizens who might then decide not to commit crimes? What do you think about the criminal themselves?

      The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.

      I’m not sure what you mean by this. The only reason there’s a discussion about the purpose of criminal punishment?

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So in your mind, we punish a criminal mostly/exclusively for the benefit of other citizens who might then decide not to commit crimes?

        I’d say that’s pretty close. I’m not going to take an “all-or-nothing” approach and say prison can’t rehabilitate, but I would say it’s mostly to punish criminals so fewer people commit crimes.

        What do you think about the criminal themselves?

        It depends on the crime and the criminal.

        The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.

        I’m referring to people who don’t understand that not everyone is good. There are bad people out there with no hope of rehabilitation and will just take advantage of any opportunity to receive a lesser punishment for their bad deeds.

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’ve reduced the argument for less severe punishment in favor of rehabilitation to:

          I’m referring to people who don’t understand that not everyone is good. There are bad people out there with no hope of rehabilitation and will just take advantage of any opportunity to receive a lesser punishment for their bad deeds.

          This is a horrible argument. No one is saying that there aren’t some people who can’t be helped. However, should all people be damned because a few can’t be redeemed? In a system that prioritizes rehabilitation, you’d review the prisoners progress occasionally to see if they’re problems are being solved. If they aren’t, they’ll serve a full lengthy sentence. If they are then they can stop being a burden to society and instead benifit society. What’s not to like about that? We waste so much money on holding people in cells and not even trying to fix them. Why do you want your taxes spent for that?

          • bobman@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            However, should all people be damned because a few can’t be redeemed?

            The thing is, all people aren’t damned. There are plenty of options for rehabilitation in the US for prisoners who have the capacity for it and haven’t committed crimes so heinous they don’t deserve it. Those options should remain there and we should always be looking for ways to improve and expand upon them.

            Still, what deters people from committing crimes isn’t ‘going to rehab.’ It’s going to prison where they lose their freedom and have to live in worse conditions than they would on the outside. If prison becomes an ‘adult daycare,’ then criminals would be less deterred by punishment and more willing to commit crimes as a result.

            • Cethin
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think your confusing what in saying. I’m not saying send them to some rehab center. I’m saying change prisons to allow for rehabilitation. We can provide more and better education opportunities and ways to improve. We can provide options for them to seek therepy and medication. We can allow them to work towards becoming a better person. They’d still be in prison without their freedom. It’s still a punishment. It’s just a punishment that you can come out of better, rather than one where you come out worse with little to no prospects of legal work.

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Harsher sentences do not effectively work as deterrence from the data we currently have. The US has the highest incarceration rate, by a large margin, so all else being equal we should have the lowest crime rate, right? This isn’t true, so we can pretty reasonably say our method is not working and is placing a larger burden on society than it needs to (though it’s making some people very wealthy).

      https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/criminal-deterrence-and-sentence-severity-analysis-recent-research

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        so all else being equal we should have the lowest crime rate, right?

        In what myopic world do you live in where “all else is equal”?

        Also, you’re confusing “harsher sentences” with “incarceration rate.” They are not the same.

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Obviously all else isn’t equal. However, given a large enough data set (the entire world) it’s clear it isn’t working because we’re literally the worst. Thats why I said all else being equal, because variations should average out across the sample and we should be able to compare performance.

          Also, you’re confusing “harsher sentences” with “incarceration rate.” They are not the same.

          They aren’t the same, but they’re closely related. If we double all sentences then, over time, the incarceration rate would double, all else being equal. If each prisoner is spending more time in prison, more people will be in prison at any given time.

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, that and all the scientific research that shows definitively that punishment isnt a successful deterrent for criminal behavior.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you link it?

        definitively

        Lol, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

        Let’s see this “definitive” research. You probably think any study is “definitive.” Lol.

        • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Multiple examples have been linked in the thread already, and even more come up on a simple google search of the topic.

          But you and I both know that you dont care about the sources, why even ask? We both know youve already decided that hurting people works, no amount of science or fact is going to shake you of that.

          Real professionals have been working on this for decades, and you hand wave that away as “victims getting taken advantage of by criminals.”

          You dont care about the facts. You have some personal grudge about this. Why not be honest?

          • bobman@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lol, okay.

            asked for sources

            doesn’t provide them

            So convincing.

            I’m curious what you are specifically referring to. You’re the one who brought up scientific studies. Link to them. Are you saying you just read what was in this thread and that’s what you’re citing? Okay. Link to the specific studies you’re talking about.

            I’m not interested in what other people are referring to. I’m interested in what you, the guy bringing up studies, is referring to.

            You say they’re “definitive.” Show me a definitive study. Go on. Go ahead. Don’t make me comb through and assume what you’re talking about. Stick your neck out and own it.

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Youre a faceless stranger, not the TA reading my dissertation. You have already been shown a few sources. I know you know how to use a search engine. You clearly dont want to be convinced. Why would I google anything for you?

              Youre hyper focusing on a word because you think that no matter what study I find, you can try to pull a “well technichallllllly” on one version of the words definition, because you think no social science can show definitive results. The gotcha attempt is more see through than glass.

              Detail why I would put work into something I know you wont read just so you can misinterpret a single word in bad faith to avoid having to confront the reality that punishment isnt a real deterrent?

              It would be more productive if you come clean about what happened to you that makes this emotional for you. Family in and out of the system? Or a partner? Who or what hurt you so bad you feel the desire to punish strangers?