Enforcing the law and the rules

[East Street Trader]

Pekka, you are right to be outraged. Senseless brutality outrages me too, and virtually everybody else.

But outrage is a very poor basis upon which to base a criminal justice system.

If we could see into the future we could lock up the tiny number of people who are going to commit murders before they do so. But we can't see into the future. And to lock up for life every person who commits a serious assault just on the off chance that later they may commit a murder would be ludicrously disproportionate.

As for the length of sentence now that the murder has been commited, well it turns out to make sense to balance quite a number of factors.

One of those factors is straightforward punishment. Everyone wants this man to be punished for his actions.

But another factor is the risk he poses to others. If the court believes he may do this again, once released, the sentence will be much longer.

In a case where the court thinks he does not pose a risk to others the proposition that a very long period in prison represents a satisfying punishment does not stand up when you look hard at it. The extra tedium of the fifth, sixth, thirteenth, thirtyth year is just not that big a deal.

And you pay a lot for the (dubious) satisfaction of imposing such sentences.

You pay in money (because it is hideously costly to keep someone under lock and key, you pay in the lost chance that the murderer, after release, will enrich other lives (that of his own children, say), you pay by making him a much harder prisoner to control (someone whose release is not impossibly distant has an incentive to behave), you pay because someone locked up for long enough becomes unable to function when (finally) released - and I could go on with a longish list of similar points.

Now you ask, what will the little girl think about a release after a few years imprisonment?

Well she may well feel particularly vindictive. That is not invariably the case but it is certainly entirely possible.

Well the short answer is that society takes upon itself the right to mete out justice. We have moved on from personal vendetta. And that has been a good idea. So we do not resolve questions of sentence by turning to the people whose emotions are the most engaged. Instead we seek a measured and rational response.

In England our courts have, in recent years, taken care to establish what the feelings are of the victims so as properly to measure the extent of the damage the criminal has done. And I think that it has proved generally helpful to give a voice to victims in that way. But that is a different matter to making vindictiveness the main plank of sentencing.

Anyway, enough from me. The simple fact is that criminal sentencing turns out to be a complex matter. So that just letting a sense of outrage determine what is done works very badly.

And I recommend to you to curb your sense of outrage for another reason. The thing to remember is that the incidents you read of in the papers, or see reported on television, are incredibly rare events. In your whole life there will be just a handful of such cases in your country. Which has 5 million people. The chance that one of these incredibly rare events will ever directly affect you is so small as to be nil.

But if outrage ever drives the Finnish criminal justice system it is not a remote possibility that you will be affected but a certainty. And I assure you, in that case you won't like it.

[Pekka]

Yeah, emotions should be kept aside when sentencing. BUt even then, I can't see nothing but a big failure with these cases. It's an outrage enough that some people are capable of such acts, but it's too much if the bigger outrage is caused by the justice system. There needs to be atmosphere where we can say 'justice will be done'.
NOT 'his karma is ruined!'.

I'm not saying shoplifters should get DP, in fact I don't believe in DP at all. I'm even ready to not go all the way of sentencing to the end of the natural life.

But, we need to get some sense to this. This is nonsense. Our Prisoners something organisations that is responsible for taking care of the prisoners and handling that business, even they have opposed many times releasing a dangerous prisoners. It has been all over papers and they say 'he is dangerous, we can not let him out!' and they like plead to everywhere. But there is always that one who don't listen and says 'we can not keep him any longer, he has served his time' which was a joke from the beginning, and the person is then released, only to be caught later on from horrific crimes. Then the papers say 'We told you so'.

This is everyday, this is the rule, not exception and that's what's wrong. We don't even have the means to stop these things from happening. We don't have any scale. Let's get 40 years maximum sentence, so now we have scale, not 12 years and even then using the lower scale from that joke.

And these acts are not incredible rare, they are every day. We have got warnings from .. I don't know it wasn't the UN but anyway, that we don't punish violent criminals in here and that violence is a problem. It's not just something I make up or read from the tabloids, it's reality, and the people know it and say it.

If these kinds of things happen and onc eagain the rule plays and victims get screwed over and criminals get a pass, it's clear that justice system is not working correctly. We can be analytical about it and all that, but it's not working and that's all that matters. I don't care if it means we have to direct money from the taxes to hold more prisoners and longer time I don't care. Let it cost. First priority needs to be securing the society, and helping the victims and let the justice be done, not being sissies about it. I think this is just common sense.

[East Street Trader]

Do you know the figure for the number of murders in Finland last year, Pekka? I had a quick look on the internet but found nothing.

How to manage a criminal justice system is discussed and disagreed about in every country in the world. And no universally held view has emerged on any aspect.

One of the topics often discussed is the question of deterrence. And it is easy to imagine that stiff sentencing may help.

But again that turns out, when you look at it, just not to stand up. You can't demonstrate deterence by way of any statistical overview and if you look at individual crimes it is pretty well impossible to work out what, if anything, might have deterred their commission.

Take the two cases you site in this thread. Paedophilia is a hideous thing. Those who practice it seem under a compulsion to do so. How do you deter compulsive behaviour?

And the car park incident. What would stop the guy from getting drunk, from picking a quarrel, and from getting into a murderous rage? If anything is clear in these weird and mindless type of case (they happen all over, not just in Finland) it is that once in the rage the murderer can hardly be thinkng at all. How to influence someone who has gone berserk?

Murder is a particularly clear illustration of this point. Because the overwhelming majority of murders - a percentage in the high nineties - take place within families. Husbands of wives, parents of children, children of parents. I have defended five people accused of murder and each was of that kind. In these cases the emotions which culminate in the killing brew for years. The notion that anything at all could deter the person once the emotional pressure cooker is ready to blow is just unreal.

The only conclusion I myself have reached on any of these things is that if you take an overall look at countries which go in for liberal criminal justice policies - and Finland sounds to be one such - and you then compare those societies overall to any country where a harsh criminal justice systems is employed I always conclude that it is the liberal country where I would much prefer to live not the one with the harsh policies.

I would be hard put to it to work out the exact whys and wherefors of that. But it does suggest to my mind that liberal criminal justice policies are a symptom of societies where the relationship between the state and the individual are, overall, on a comparatively good footing. Whereas harsh criminal justice tends to go arm in arm with other, less justified, forms of repression.

That exercise confirms what the statistics show. That there is no known case where liberal criminal justice policies demonstrably impact badly overall on society at large or on quality of life. If liberal criminal justice was invariably associated with a crime ridden society then they would soon disappear. But, in fact, however liberal or however harsh the criminal justice regime, crime rates seem largely unaffected.

[Shai-Hulud]

It is very true that statistics show that harsh sentences do little or no good when crime rates are concerned. However since harder sentencies often don't affect crime rates in positive or negative ways, we should look into other issues. Prisoners are costly, especially here in Finland. But this CAN be helped(more productive labour for prisoners, less luxuries etc.) and even if the costs remain high we must meet the crime with proper punishment. I think it's also a question of human rights. What kind of appreciation does a justice system show to human rights if they persist on judging murderers to few years sentences?

Trader's posts makes a lot of sense. I'm against death penalty and twenty year sentences from shoplifting. An idea that the state is given right to murder individual on any basis, is somewhat repulsive. That is, in time of peace.
I believe in flexibility when justice is served. I actually believe that none of our views on liberal criminal justice are so very different. But I must demand respect of freedom of life, also in form of harder punishments.
We should look closely into the development of justice system, not to let our emotions to irrationally effect in hardening sentencies and giving more power to the system.
However the negative effects(both ethically and economically) of not punishing our criminals may be severe as well. A certain moral decay will probably result from both overly hard or overly liberal justice system.

[Dr Strangelove]

Here in the US, in most instances, intoxication can not be used as a mitigating factor with regards to sentencing of violent crimes.

In most states a person's criminal record is sealed away when he reaches the age of majority. Juveniles also can not receive sentences that stretch beyond the date of the attainment of legal majority, usually their 21st birthday. Older teens however may be tried as adults by court order, in which case they may receive adult sentences.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Murder is a particularly clear illustration of this point. Because the overwhelming majority of murders - a percentage in the high nineties - take place within families. Husbands of wives, parents of children, children of parents. I have defended five people accused of murder and each was of that kind. In these cases the emotions which culminate in the killing brew for years. The notion that anything at all could deter the person once the emotional pressure cooker is ready to blow is just unreal.

This used to be the case in the USA, but since the 1960s the percentage of murders committed during the commission of other crimes has steadily risen. Currently about 50% of murders in the US arise not out of inter-personal conflicts within families or among friends, but instead occur during the course of another crime - rape, burglary, robbery, car theft, drug dealing, and etc., or as "random" acts of violence committed for the thrill of it.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So we won't let them vote or be held liable for a contract, because they are too young to fully understand the implications of their action, we can still send them to prison as adults? If you're gopnna treat kids as adults, don't do it half-assed. Get rid of age-of-consent laws, drinking ages, driving ages, working ages, etc. Either kids are fully competent or they aren't.

Hurrah!
But you might need a decent social system because an 8-year-old can't do quite as much work as an 18-year-old, if only because of lack of experience.
I'm up for all of that above. Rather than skirting the issue of teaching responsibility by waiting for kids to figure it out for themselves, we should probably teach them responsibility!
If they're gonna be stupid and make mistakes, then they're gonna be stupid and make mistakes, regardless of their age.
We learn from experience, after all.

Kids. They develop and learn stuff, of course, but we shouldn't treat them as 'inferior beings'. Maybe they haven't come to understand themselves like we have? Well, maybe so! But none of us here is omniscient, we all do learn.
Treat them as people. Learning people. Have patience with them and impart to them your kindness, and they'll probably develop into well-learned and effective people.

[Enigma_Nova]

Presuming you can define what a 'crime' is...
(Is drug-taking an offence? Is Incest and offence?)
The idea is quite simple.
Rehabilitate who you can and kill who you can't.

Of course, one of the problems (if not THE problem) I have with the current authority system is that those with power are always presumed correct in their judgements.
The system whose laws preach right from wrong,
The parent who disciplines dissent,
Even those dangerous fundys and their omnipotent god.

But presuming you know right from wrong...
For those who are 'wrong', try to make them 'right'.
For those who cannot be made 'right', rid the world of their wrong - permanently.
For those who are right - goodo!
Of course if dissent is criminal then all this goes out the window.

So I'd support only two levels:
1. Rehab
2. Death
And possibly a 3rd level: Was that really a crime?
I mean, what's the difference to a credit card scam and someone using a credit card to buy Civ 3?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, everyone who thinks it's a good idea to forgive every person all the time,

Forgiveness requires contrition. The person must admit that he was wrong, and that he is fully responsible. They should also be willing to make some form of restitution to the victims.

How willing would people be to commit crimes if they had to undo the damage they caused, or if it cannot be undone to see the effects that their actions have on others? I think there is much to be said for shame as a deterrent.

As for vigilante justice, I once worked with a supervisor who was arrested for assault after deliberately smashing his car into the car of a pedophile. He said it was the only satisfaction he would ever receive. Such is the danger of lax sentences.

However, I would contest some of E-Nova's assumptions regarding the death penalty. Are there really people who cannot be reformed? The problem with thet death penalty is that it sometimes indicts innocents, of whom we cannot save if they are killed.

The system whose laws preach right from wrong,
The parent who disciplines dissent,
Even those dangerous fundys and their omnipotent god.

If one cannot trust the judgments of those in power for lesser cases, why should we trust them when someone's life is at stake?

[Pekka]

Todays winner is the guy who raped a middle aged woman in city, in the middle of the drive-way!



Anyway, no one helped the poor woman, because everyone knows if you lay your hands on the rapist, you WILL get harder punishment thatn the rapist and that's a fact, not just a joke. Why get criminal record for that?
****ed up.

And the rest of bystanders where sissies who should will have their karma recked forever if they have one.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
2. Crime commited by minors should not be counted

I don't see any reason for this...

A couple years ago, 3 12 year old boys raped some girl. They were cought, but as they were filmed as they were walking around with police excort, they were smiling, because they knew nothing could happen to them anyway

I wouldn't be surprised if they did it several times after this


I think there were a smilular (sp?) crime in England about 6 years ago, were two 10 year old boys wanted to feel how it was to kill someone, so they decided to kill some little girl. IIRC they later said they had to do it at that time, if they did it later they'll just get to jail because of it...

[Pekka]

I think if you see a rapist in action, punch his teeth in and kick his butt, you should get a medal for it, not punished. If you do permanent damage to the rapist, or assault, or anyone who is doing a violent crime and you're there to stop it, then you get sentenced for using too much force. If the rapist survives with bruises and few broken bones, you get a medal.

[Shai-Hulud]

If one cannot trust the judgments of those in power for lesser cases, why should we trust them when someone's life is at stake?

Yes, why should we Enigma? You seem to support reasoning and criticism against authority but at the same time you'd be ready to give authority power to violate human rights...as also discussed in previous threads. What would this "new authority" represent and why should it be so trustworthy?

Anyway, no one helped the poor woman, because everyone knows if you lay your hands on the rapist, you WILL get harder punishment thatn the rapist and that's a fact, not just a joke.

This is also one of our national specialities. It is very much common knowledge that the criminal justice of Finland protects the rights of offender, rather than the rights of the victim. In comparison, to say USA, where the justice system protects victim at the expense of criminal's rights. Now, there should be something in between.
Anyway, it's really quite worrying that people are not (really) allowed to defend their fellow men against offence. That right is priviledge of the state. But since we're living in a democracy state can not be presumed to watch every street corner, and neither it should. So, now we REALLY are at the point we're self defence is, if not forbidden then at least disfavoured. And anyone who defends victim may very well become criminal himself.
It's absolutely ridiculous.

[TCO]

Death penalty is the solution. you all get jiggy with the sparks and we will consider joining your circle jerk international jobfactories for academic jurists.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
What kind of fascists are you guys?

The crime rate in the US is the highest of the Western world, and the death penalties/life sentences are sure doing nothing against it.

And about the 'three strikes you're out law': it does make some sense, but:

1. As long as using drugs is a crime, this law can only suck
2. Crime commited by minors should not be counted
3. And I sincerely think it should only apply to violent crimes and/or very major frauds or thefts, even if they are non-violent. Sending a father or a mother to jail because he stole a TV is the best thing to do if you want to cook brand new criminals with their children.

In Quebec, everyone is pissed off because the federal forced us to abandon our 'young offenders law', which was much less strict and gave more results in reintegrating them.

Why must you continue this masquerade as the Boris of the OT? You are not Boris.