#Hard on crime vs soft on crime

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

serene sage
#

The entire purpose of this forum is to ask the question - which is worse - hard on crime or soft on crime approaches?

On the one hand a soft on hand approach may seem more humane to the person accused of committing X crime but then the question is asked - is that “criminal” getting what they deserve or are they being effectively rehabilitated?

On the other hand - hard on crime polices try to serve the purpose of 1- keeping criminals off the street literally by keeping them behind bars (usually) and 2- trying to scare ppl from committing crimes. But many also ask the question - are we too severely “punishing” the individual convicted of X crime?

I don’t want to go into what *should be done - just what the public thinks is better/worse in general - hard on crime or soft on crime policies

balmy tiger
#

I dont like the framing of the question, as "hard on crime vs soft on crime" is specifically from a "hard on crime" lense. But ik what you mean. i think it should be a mix of both. The purpose of the justice system should be to prevent crime which is (as extremely well documented) clearly done more effectively by a rehabilitative system, rather than a system like Americas where you leave as a worse person than you entered. Im happy to live in a country where we have this system, and its reflected in our crime rate.

At the same time though, rehabilitative justice can take too much of a front seat and legitimately become "soft on crime" to where its no longer rehabilitative, and its just doing nothing. Usually thats not system wide, but happens in specific cases or for specific crimes, where someone clearly don't end up facing any consequences at all, for their actions. There needs to be both. A narcotics pusher whos willing to do whats necessary to exit that life and serious about it, should have that opportunity. As well as any other small time criminal. A domestic abuser needs to face consequences, but also in a rehabilitative way to effectively prevent them from doing it again. But a serial child molester getting 3 years and then let loose again, obviously is also not reliable at all, and someone like that needs to be put UNDER the prison, with 7 Diddys, one for each day of the week.

A prison system in which every preventative measure EXCEPT hard punishment is abandoned is not even logical.

acoustic bay
#

I agree with Rat, the “hard” vs “soft” on crime language is not neutral language and does tend to get used by those who see harsher punishments as always a good thing and rehabilitative or preventative actions as a waste of time and resources. This makes it challenging to actually answer your question as asked.

For example, a long prison sentence is seen as “hard.” However, does this mean it’s always the right thing to do? Maybe for a murderer, but if it’s being used on drug users to try and dissuade the use of drugs, it’s too extreme and probably not going to be as effective as having them go through some sort of addiction rehabilitation.

serene sage
#

I see what yall were saying about the lense of my question was from a “hard on crime” POV- I was not trying to come off as biased or anything and was trying to keep it open

#

Personally - I’m unsure which of the 2 I would argue is *worse

On the one hand - I am a victim of a hit and run attempt that nearly killed me - and the person that attacked me did not get any jail time or anything, just a traffic ticket and also one of my family members was murdered and the person who committed said murder served less than 10 years. So I would personally argue that atleast my own immediate family/ self have faced the less friendly side of a *soft on crime approach

But on the other hand - I don’t want someone to be basically rotting their life away in prison, unless for very very serious crimes, or someone leaving prison *worse than when they entered

#

If that makes sense

acoustic bay
#

Agreed. In an ideal world, the severity of the punishment matches the severity of the crime, while also offering some sort of support to help the person rejoin society. Perhaps a <10 year prison sentence for murder, as you mentioned, is too “soft” in that sense and should have been longer. But maybe there should also be some form of required therapy, anger management, etc as part of the prison sentence. These may not come off as punitive enough for some, and therefore also be considered a “soft” punishment for criminals, but it’s also the kind of thing that would seem to reduce recidivism.

thin estuary
#

Depends on the crime. I'm generally supportive of harsher punishments for crimes against person or property, but I don't particularly care about everything else, like speeding, non-violent drug oggenses, etc.

thin estuary
#

what there a hit and run or wasn't there?

serene sage
#

For a more detailed description - he hit me right around where my back right tire of my car was while he was driving pretty fast - that shoved my car a different direction and down a ditch - he stayed kinda looking at me before then taking off

thin estuary
serene sage
#

Yeah

#

He ran - but didn’t get far, cops were legit like right there for the most part

past smelt
#

Well, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that harder punishments e.g. bigger fines, longer prison sentences etc does not work to deter people from comitting crimes. So for the second point you make in the OP, that is not a proper argument. On paper it sounds logical, but in practice it doesn't work.

#

So being in favor of harsher punishments because that results in less crime is not in line with reality

#

On the contrary, research suggests that more humane punishments result in better integration and lower rate of repeat offenders.

#

But that ofcourse is the average outcome over a full population and does not say anything about individual people.

#

So for some crimes and some people, harder punishments may be more productive, but on average they are counterproductive.

#

I think you do ask an intersting question in the OP.

" is that “criminal” getting what they deserve or are they being effectively rehabilitated? "

To answer this question, you basically have to boil down the main purpose of sentencing people in the first place. What is the goal of the legal system?

  1. The legal system is in place to punish bad behaviour
  2. The legal system is in place to increase safety of society

Depending on what your personal beliefs are regarding these ideas will most likely determine what approach you favor, either harsher or more lax punishments.

thin estuary
#

everything else - yeah, rehabilitation first.

past smelt
#

So you are likely leaning more towards harsher punishments for ''hard'' crimes

#

at least, that's my hypothesis

thin estuary
#

yes

past smelt
#

Do you then also believe that the justice/legal system functions as a tool for collective revenge?

#

And final question: Do you believe revenge should be a motivator for punishment in the first place regarding a legal system?

thin estuary
past smelt
#

I mean it generally does, but it doesn't have to.

#

But im more interested in whether it should be functioning like that or not

thin estuary
#

we put people in prisons for two reasons. To effectively remove them from the society, and to also punish them

#

in some cases the punishment is more important, in some cases the removal from society is more important

#

but no matter how you spin it, prison is effectively revenge

past smelt
#

Well it depends on the motivation of the punishment

#

The outcome is the same I agree

thin estuary
#

but yeah, as for the punishments, in theory I'm also supportive of the death penalty, but in practice I'm against it

#

that's because in theory there's nothing wrong with a capital punishment for a capital crime

#

except the state doesn't get it right 100% of the time, and anything above a 0% wrongful conviction rate when the death penalty is involved is simply not acceptable

past smelt
#

So I don't think that statement holds any value

thin estuary
past smelt
#

okay but that's something different from ''in theory there's nothing wrong''

thin estuary
#

of course, that's just my opinion

past smelt
#

because that suggests that nothing could attack the justification