Crime, Punishment, and Prevention

Post Reply New Topic

What do you think is the most effective way to police and reduce crime in a developed nation such as Britain?

I say more action, less red tape, more CCTV cameras (Britain is leading the way in CCTV surveillance, and it deters and helps catch criminals. CCTV on lots of streets ensures that any disturbances are reacted to quickly if there are enough police units, and will most certainly streamline trials.

Equip police units with tasers and firearms as standard, with orders only to use them if there is a dangerous armed threat, or out of control, non-compliant felons. It's a neccessity, which will make criminals fear the police more, and of course make them a match for armed criminals.

Ensure lots of public information adverts, and have greater transparency.

Streamline the conviction and punishment process. If there is video evidence, use it. If there is phone tap evidence, use it. If there is any shred of credible evidence, use it. It all pieces together and gets more criminals into prison or into the gallows.

Bring back capital punishment for the worst offenders. It will deter people from committing rape and murder.

Build more prisons, and institute convict labour schemes. That way they will be contributing whilst spending their time in prison or at local workhouses. Pay them £10 a week or something, just to keep them sweet, with a £5 bonus if they do well in the schemes. Keep the criminals in small groups... divide and conquer. That means a rotation of prison out time, when getting meals, and going to the outer yard, plus of course labour trips. No more than fifty prisoners roaming around at one time. Even though they may be convicted criminals, criminals should not be allowed to gang up on each other.

Keep convicts away from drugs, detoxify them, or perhaps use a placebo. Drugs should not be allowed to flow around, either. Ensure that nothing illegal gets to prisoners.

Kill the humans.

If you're using the "Dune" definition of humans, then you just leave people....

Harsh punishments that make people afraid to commit crime. That should deter a loooot of crime...

You steal? We'll pour lye on your hand.
You rape? We chemically castrate you and give you ED. Maybe some good flogging too.
You kill? Alright, we'll kill you too.
Beat up someone? Especially an old person? We'll beat you within an inch of your life.
Stab someone? We'll stab you in the kidney and pour salt in the wound.
Shoot someone? We'll shoot one of your kneecaps right out.
Rob a bank? We'll trash your house....steal some of your goods, bust holes in the walls, break some windows.
Use your corporate position to steal your employees' retirement funds? We'll put you on a platform, make you wear a sign that says "I am a worthless, greedy bastard and a blight upon society", and make you say it out loud, apologize, and have all the workers you affected throw stones at you (that we provide) until they don't feel like it anymore. Maybe you'll come alive, maybe you won't.

I'm not saying I support hardly any of these, but if the punishments were that severe, would you ever even think of shoplifting if you knew you'd get lye poured on your hand? Rape if you would get a severe flogging and permanent impotence?
If the punishments are a slap on the wrist, people won't care. If they're scary enough, people will care.

I was going to say, lower your ideals.

I liked his ideals. Came to my solution.

I am the beerhead of arruckus. I pour the beer with no head
into my own head.

So you are suggesting that the police dont fill in the paperwork. Nice idea, especially when they go to court to give evidence, and have to let the criminal go because the officer cant remember something.

So the criminals can match them. Brilliant idea, so we now have shootouts between what were petty criminals and the police several times a day now then.

Wont make much difference to the real criminals, do you think they give a damn.

So the innocent are now more likely to be found guilty. There is national security reasons why the footage and phone taps are not used in court.

In the same way it does in the US....

They exist under what is known as rehabitation programmes already.

If only it were that simple...

No, the paperwork remains, but less of it. With cameras everywhere, and even audio recorders on the officers, that should help alot.


No, because guns will remain hard to get ahold of except for law enforcement. The guns should have to be placed in storage before officers can go off duty. We don't have the same laws as the US, where if you want to get a gun, you can just go to a shop and ask for one, almost. Guns have to be smuggled or replicas have to be modified. Here, there are a whole load of checks required before you can get hold of a double barreled shotgun legally, which isn't allowed to be shortened.

It will help to restore public trust in the police, which will in turn make them more cooperative, and also deter some criminals who commit petty crimes/vandalism thinking that the police aren't going to do anything about it, due to all the red tape.

That's not true, a phone tap helps to place people, and if it indeed turns evidence against or in their favour, it should be used. If it affects national security by identifying government spies, then that is an exception.

It's not only partial justice for the victim(s), but it puts one less scumbag off the streets forever.

Yes, but convict labour, and more restrictions on the amounts of free roaming prisoners will help to get things under control. Permanently.

I only meant that it was important.

Punishments should deter crime. If they don't deter crime, they're useless punishments.

There is quite a lot of good data that says capital punishment, in its modern and sterile form, does not deter crime.

But consistently applied punishments work quite well. You won't be deterred by a punishment if that punishment isn't applied to all offenders (because you'll think you might avoid it), so punishments should be statutory and immutable. Judicial discretion encourages crime.

An armed populace also deters crime. No one is going to walk into a diner in Texas and try to rob the cash register because there are 16 people with guns sitting there eating breakfast.

I think calandale has given the correct answer.
Why are people still trolling in this thread ?

I wouldnt say there is trolling going off.

Last edited by Hadron on 17 Aug 2007, 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1. Right everyone is going to allow cameras on everything. I think that Big Brother idea is one heck of an erosion of civil liberties.
2. Guns can be smuggled into the country quite easily, so that problem isnt sold. Anyway, the knowledge to build a damn good gun is out there on the internet, and I doubt people wont make them.
3. Yeah, people really trust the media dont they. Again another moronic idea.
4. It affects national security because the methods would have to be revealed in court that are used for phone tapping. Terrorists armed with that knowledge could then bypass them, not to mention foriegn states.
5. Assuming that this "scumbag" isnt innocent. And also, some do not find death a punishment, or at least not as much as being incarcerated all their life. Hence all the prison suicides. In the US there is more crime than here, and more nasty crimes as well. Also there is at least one member of this forum who could be put to death under your regime, but I will not go there.
6. Right...
So then, do you fancy yourself living under some fascist dictatorship, Anubis. Or do you want to be the dictator?

Allow citizens to carry handguns, and give them the freedom to shoot dead anyone thieving from their property.

*snorts* That would really work well....

Glad you agree; I'm usually right, you know.