Explain the problems with having only one punishment to control all types of criminal behavior?

Question

When I say punishment, I'm meaning deterrent strategy! I know that one punishment can't possible fit all types of crimes! Example: If a man has gone to jail for selling drugs (crack), get out and decides that he will sell marijuana because he knows it will have a lesser sentence if he gets caught. Hey....this is a tough for me to, that's why I'm asking.

Answer 1

This is similar to Henry Ford's proposal that you could choose any color you liked as long as it was black. Obviously the idea of one punishment for all crimes creates the possibility for an economy of scale. At first sight, it may seem that this approach would be less costly for an administration to oversee if it didn't involve long term, non productive incarceration. For example summary execution or amputation of the offending limb or whatever would be cheaper to impose particularly if it was ruled illegal to provide medical attention to the wounded.

The reality is that the US population would not take kindly to Bush doing what he is doing to foreigners in other countries if he was doing it to us here so civil dissent would rise (and therefor crime)You can't run a fascist state that violates people's lives and previous rights without people objecting).

The reality of one punishment under the Bush regime (it would need to be harsh to prevent mass dissent) is that you would have an exodus of people leaving the country via the Mexican and Canadian borders thereby removing the source of much tax revenue - so the real cost would therefor be greater than the direct cost of bullets, amputations, torture sessions or whatever else you and our criminal President might have in mind.

Answer 2

Of course one punishment doesn't fit all, but, as we are taught in law school, "the law is a blunt instrument". This means, the law can't calibrate the appropriate punishments for every crime and must deal with the tools it has. This means taking away one's liberty, (jail or privileges) or taking away one's money (fines). These are basically what the law has at its disposal, and admittedly, its not always a good fit.

Answer 3

I agree with the other answerer's answers but you said control right, there is no punishment even today to control criminals unless it is the death penalty as we have way to many repeat offenders. Sometimes a rapist gets more of a punishment then a murderer does this seem right to you?

Answer 4

Because every action has a consequence, but not all consequences are the same nor are they equal. Would you like the same punishment for a serial killer as for a petty thief. The same punishment for someone caught stealing a car as someone who raped someone. The same punishment for dwi as for someone who was speeding. Thats a really stupid question.

Answer 5

That's obvious...a harsh punishment would be unfair to those who committed a 'mild' crime...but a mild punishment wouldn't be serious enough for those who committed quite serious crimes.

Death penalty for a parking ticket or jay walking? A small fine or community service for rape or murder?

Answer 6

It's unfair. Someone who kills a man shouldn't get the same punishment as a person who forgot to pay for parking tickets.

Answer 7

The death penalty seems a little extreme for petty theft, yet 6 months in a county pen. is a tad light for someone who raped and murdered even one person, much less all those colorful serial killers we get (Dahmer, wasn't that fun?).

Answer 8

First and foremost the punishment would not always fit the crime. The death penalty may fit for capital murder but it would not fit for felony drug possession.

Answer 9

One size does NOT fit all.

How would stealing a car equate with murder?

What if we give a flat seven years? I would be willing to give up seven years if the person I truly detested was dead and gone forever.

Answer 10

Severe punishment would be like overkill on petty crimes such as shoplifting or tresspassing.