2007-03-03 08:58:47 · 5 answers · asked by chiligurl254 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Higher Education (University +)
If you use capital punishment, that person can't commit crime any more. You can't get more effective than that (whether capital punishment is the best punishment or not is debatable, but it certainly is the most effective).
2007-03-03 09:16:50 · answer #1 · answered by Laurel W 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no "punishment" that deters crime effectively. "Punishment," generally speaking, doesn't work at all, is not a reliable means to shape behavior (of children, much less the criminally-minded). Any success is hit or miss.
Do a little research on restorative justice... it's pretty interesting. It's Aboriginal in origin and its focus is on healing and involving individuals in the justice process who are local and directly affected by the crime - sometimes as many as 200 members of the community become involved in the process. The idea is to address the causal factors behind the crime, make salient to the offender the impact s/he has had on the victim and the rest of the community, and restore health and balance to the involved individuals and the community at large. It sounds like a lot of Pollyanna nonsense, but as a means of dealing with aberrant behavior, restorative justice is among the most successful, if not THE most successful, in terms of decreasing recidivism (short of capital punishment, in which case a person can take no further action at all, positive or negative).
2007-03-03 17:02:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The knowledge that they _will_ get caught.
People choose to commit crimes (even mild ones like speeding) mostly because they believe they won't get caught.
So, enforce the laws and lets the courts decide on the punishment.
After that the punishment should fit the crime.
So, those speeders should have to pick up trash on the side of the freeway. Their speeding put other people at risk, their working on the shoulder puts them at risk.
2007-03-03 17:13:41 · answer #3 · answered by Jesse C 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Prevention and then "over-stated" restitution as needed. For example, say, someone like Halliburton overcharges the U.S. Army and American taxpayer for billions of dollars, that company's assets and those assets of all investors should be confiscated and redistributed to the taxpayers. Immediately, such graft, thievery and plundering criminal activities would end. Certainly, people would be more "discerning" about their investment choices and portfolios in the future.
2007-03-03 17:11:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Recivitivism is lowest with death penalty. Deterrence is not a factor for anybody else
2007-03-03 20:38:11 · answer #5 · answered by mistrhistre 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋