What do you think is the more important objective, to prevent crime from happening, or to catch those who would commit to such crimes?
One contrasting situation I can think of is hidden cameras. While if you have security cameras, say, watching over a parking lot, and they are easily noticeable, someone is less likely to perform malicious activities there, while a hidden camera would not discourage a criminal at all.
I think that it is more important to prevent crime before it happens by discouraging crime. In an ideal world, nobody would feel the need for crime at all, however that's not the case.
So, what do you think is more important, catching criminals or preventing crime?
Preventing crime.
If there is no crime then there are no criminals to catch.
[QUOTE=blackfire88;34487069]Preventing crime.
If there is no crime then there are no criminals to catch.[/QUOTE]
same reasoning could be used for the "imprisoning criminals"
[QUOTE=beanhead;34487099]same reasoning could be used for the "imprisoning criminals"[/QUOTE]
If you imprison all the criminals, then more will just come up in their place and commit more crime. In the end you're just pulling in more and more people.
If you prevent all crime, then you don't have to account for prisoners because there would be none.
Mostly crime happens in the same areas caused by the same kind of people, whether it's bad youth or it's from being poor, I'm sure a life can be fixed by making minor changes.
Surely then there's also the crime caused by incorrect opinions, or even foolish laws, but I bet those will never be fixed.
[B]Edit:[/B]
Hinting after preventing crime.
Before shouting "prevent crime!" I'd like to know, how are you going to do that?
Imprisoning, or, having punishments, is a preventive method, as this discourages people to engage in criminal activities.
Therefor, imprisoning is the correct solution, as it contains best of both worlds, plus the fact that it is actually possible, rather than doing a magical "sv_preventcrime 1"
Preventing crime would certainly be best. Less criminals, less prisons, less economic burden (prisons are expensive as shit), and better for the community.
Now the problem is that this is a lofty goal. Crime cannot be completely prevented, but it can be reduced. The government has been trying to fix up my city by adding nice buildings by the more run-down areas and adding green ways and such. This makes the environment look nicer and provides jobs when the buildings are constructed (because of the businesses that settle there.)
Crime can be reduced, but not prevented entirely.
But for the question, prevention is better.
prevent crime by educating those who want education and by putting those who want jobs in decent jobs that give them means to provide for themselves or a family
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34488096]prevent crime by educating those who want education and by putting those who want jobs in decent jobs that give them means to provide for themselves or a family[/QUOTE]
You're making an assumption that all crime commited is done for an individual to support themselves or relatives, and that all of those who commit crime want formal education. What about crime done for the sake of it? Such as vandalism? Or what about assaulting/mudering others as part of revenge for a previous incident? How does that relate to giving the individual a means to provide for him or herself? Education and having an occupation do not remove the desire to commit crime, but may prevent the desire to commit certain crimes (such as robbery, if the individual is already in a well-paying job).
The desire / arguable necessity to commit crime cannot be eliminated, as long as we have laws they will be broken thanks to our imperfect society. The good thing about imprisonment is that it takes criminals off of the streets and also may repulse others from commiting crimes if they can see the consequences of them. Once the criminals are in prison, it's a matter of rehabilitating as many individuals back into society as possible. Of course, no guarantees that all could be rehabilitated.
You'd have to go very deep into family and parenting issues all around the world in all different types of families if you wanted to actually prevent crimes from happening by preventing people from turning into criminals in the first place.
Crime is a social problem much of which is created by things in our society that can be changed to lessen crime. Imprisoning people doesn't solve the real root of the problem. It is a reactive measure.
In order to really make a change, you must tackle the issue at the heart. Example: Instead of punishing a disadvantaged poor man who turns to crime, change his situation for the better with a better education system, and opportunities for all before he must turn to crime. That is a simple example for a problem that isn't all that simple, but possible. Not in our current state of society however.
Also, imprisonment should not be a punishment, but a time to rehabilitate. Focus on rehabilitation and/or methods to make criminals effective contributors to society. If they cannot be rehabilitated, imprisonment should be used to [I]protect society[/I] from that individual [I]not punishment.[/I] Punishment is not an effective macro-crime deterrent, only a localized cease of crime from that individual.
In short, tackle more of the problems in society that cause crime, and less of punishing after the fact. For cases which cannot be rehabilitated(i.e. psychopathic murderers) imprisonment to protect others, not punish.
Whilst I support the whole rehab idea, I have difficulty justifying criminals being put on courses for free whilst those who have done nothing wrong have to pay and often can not afford it/get on it.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;34513167]Whilst I support the whole rehab idea, I have difficulty justifying criminals being put on courses for free whilst those who have done nothing wrong have to pay and often can not afford it/get on it.[/QUOTE]
Rehabilitation courses? Why would someone who isn't a criminal even need those courses?
[QUOTE=psycix;34487731]Before shouting "prevent crime!" I'd like to know, how are you going to do that?
Imprisoning, or, having punishments, is a preventive method, as this discourages people to engage in criminal activities.
Therefor, imprisoning is the correct solution, as it contains best of both worlds, plus the fact that it is actually possible, rather than doing a magical "sv_preventcrime 1"[/QUOTE]
Education improvements would probably be one aspect that would help reduce crime.
[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;34511219]
In order to really make a change, you must tackle the issue at the heart. Example: Instead of punishing a disadvantaged poor man who turns to crime, change his situation for the better with a better education system, and opportunities for all before he must turn to crime. That is a simple example for a problem that isn't all that simple, but possible. Not in our current state of society however.[/quote]
this does nothing to address people who steal cars and spraypaint cocks on buildings out of boredom. It also doesn't do anything for white collar crime, and it doesn't do anything to curb people's greed. Oh, and it also does fuck all to curb drug trade, which is a HUGE problem with regard to curbing crime.
I'm all for the "Fix the problem, not the symptom" approach, but this won't fix the problem. All it will do is reduce crimes committed by the desperate who can't otherwise eat breakfast the next day.
[quote]
Also, imprisonment should not be a punishment, but a time to rehabilitate. Focus on rehabilitation and/or methods to make criminals effective contributors to society. If they cannot be rehabilitated, imprisonment should be used to [I]protect society[/I] from that individual [I]not punishment.[/I] Punishment is not an effective macro-crime deterrent, only a localized cease of crime from that individual.[/quote]
Not gonna work. What's gonna stop someone from agreeing their way out and, within two days, reoffending? Absolutely fucking nothing, that's what. Most kids learn that skill very early, and I can guarantee you criminals will put that skill to use and exploit a rehabilitative system. They'll be back on the street and back in the old criminal groove before the ink dries on their release papers.
You need to give them a reason not to reoffend. Give them a system they can, literally, just nod their way out of in a matter of weeks just won't do any good. If anything it will make crime [i]worse[/i], as the crims will know they can just nod their way out and be right back on the street with but a slap on the wrist for anything below murder or rape. There won't be a car stereo left un-boosted.
Spending ten years in a punitive jail is more effective than spending six months nodding and lying their way through a rehabilitative one IMO.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
