Soft on Crime

[Lewkowski]

We apparently have different ideas on what is important in a criminal justice system. My primary concern is the lessening of crime and keeping innocents safe. What I would do would make it more likely that she does not harm another child. What you propose would make it more likely. Now I get your value system is different than mine, you think society should consider what is good or bad for the criminal as well as the victim. Under that philosophy I see why you would push for lenience. However my moral calculus gives ZERO value to her and to other criminals. I'd rather 10,000 monsters like that die than let even a 5% chance that one innocent will be harmed again.

[EyeKhan]

We apparently have different ideas on what is important in a criminal justice system. What you are talking about is not justice, you are interest My primary concern is the lessening of crime and keeping innocents safe. What I would do would make it more likely that she does not harm another child. What you propose would make it more likely. Now I get your value system is different than mine, you think society should consider what is good or bad for the criminal as well as the victim. Under that philosophy I see why you would push for lenience. However my moral calculus gives ZERO value to her and to other criminals. I'd rather 10,000 monsters like that die than let even a 5% chance that one innocent will be harmed again.

You misinterpret my argument. I am interested in what is good, or most practical and effective, for society -- part of which is cost/ benefit. Imprisoning this woman carries a much higher cost and no better benefit than treating her mental illness. I suspect the reason you disagree is because treatment doesn't satisfy your desire for punishment. A thirst for revenge and hurt is not part of my moral calculus (probably a residue from my Christian upbringing), nor does satisfying it benefit society in any way. Probably your yearning for such things clouds in your mind what needs to be done in favor of what you desire to be done, but they are not the same thing.

[Lewkowski]

You misinterpret my argument. I am interested in what is good, or most practical and effective, for society -- part of which is cost/ benefit. Imprisoning this woman carries a much higher cost and no better benefit than treating her mental illness. I suspect the reason you disagree is because treatment doesn't satisfy your desire for punishment. A thirst for revenge and hurt is not part of my moral calculus (probably a residue from my Christian upbringing), nor does satisfying it benefit society in any way. Probably your yearning for such things clouds in your mind what needs to be done in favor of what you desire to be done, but they are not the same thing.

Let me make sure I clarify your argument.

Your position is that whatever is "good, or most practical and effective, for society -- part of which is cost/ benefit" is that locking up this woman is not as good for society because of the monetary cost? Do you have a specific equation you work off of?

For example X crime has a cost associated with it. Let's say child murder. What is the societal cost for allowing child murder to occur? Apply this to other crimes such as rape, assault, etc. Once you have that you can consider the probability of it occurring and then compare that to the cost of prison. So what price tag do you consider child abuse to have?

The monetary cost of locking people up can be high however the entire basis of government, the social contract, which says 'yeah we'll accept the lack of absolute freedom in exchange for safety' is the REASON we want government and not anarchy. The cost of keeping us safe is one of the few expenditures I'm fully in favor of.

[EyeKhan]

Do you have a specific equation you work off of?

No. But you could start with adding up the cost of lifetime imprisonment with the cost of the loss of her future economic productivity, and comparing it to the cost of appropriate psychological treatment.

[Lewkowski]

No. But you could start with adding up the cost of lifetime imprisonment with the cost of the loss of her future economic productivity, and comparing it to the cost of appropriate psychological treatment.

What level of recidivism is acceptable to you?

[EyeKhan]

What level of recidivism is acceptable to you?

The challenge is to recognize that a one size fits all draconian police state is not justified by the goal of eliminating all risk of repeat offense. I know you are afraid, but you have to accept that there is no way for you to be completely safe, no matter what cost you are willing to have the nation bear.

[Lewkowski]

The challenge is to recognize that a one size fits all draconian police state is not justified by the goal of eliminating all risk of repeat offense. I know you are afraid, but you have to accept that there is no way for you to be completely safe, no matter what cost you are willing to have the nation bear.

I'm far far more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident than I am to get killed. Doubly so because I don't live in a place like Chicago or Detroit.

And I never did get an answer on what level of recidivism is acceptable crime. I'm not suggesting one size fits all, society has less concern about a pickpocket doing their crime again compared to a child rapist. So let's just narrow it down to child rape. What level is acceptable for you? IE if it is 10% than you are OK with one child being raped for each 10 child rapists being let out of prison. If it is 5% than you are OK with one child being raped for every 20 child rapists being let out. Just throw out a number.

[GGT]

...
For example X crime has a cost associated with it. Let's say child murder. What is the societal cost for allowing child murder to occur? Apply this to other crimes such as rape, assault, etc. Once you have that you can consider the probability of it occurring and then compare that to the cost of prison. So what price tag do you consider child abuse to have?

The monetary cost of locking people up can be high however the entire basis of government, the social contract, which says 'yeah we'll accept the lack of absolute freedom in exchange for safety' is the REASON we want government and not anarchy. The cost of keeping us safe is one of the few expenditures I'm fully in favor of.

Then what's your stance on limitations to the 2nd Amendment?