....instead of jail.
2007-07-17 11:57:21 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Confiscating assets earned from crime is already a reality. It would be ridiculous to send someone to jail, release them, and let them live in a house they bought from criminal money.
The best approach is what already happens. Punish them AND remove the financial benefits of their crime. The main beneficiaries are drug dealers, armed robbers and fraudsters. Most other criminals likely squander their illicit earnings.
The simple fact is though, jail does NOT work for most people. It is not a deterrent to most, and many see a jail term as a badge of honour (esp young offenders) rather than a punishment. If prison has truly worked for an offender, he would only ever be imprisoned once.
I think the best outcome is to give non-violent offenders a non-custodial sentence where possible. Make them work, even the if work is pointless. The key is not making the "punishment" fit the crime, it is making the sentence fit the criminal.
2007-07-17 14:45:52 · answer #1 · answered by undercover elephant 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the career criminal has any property-it sounds like a good idea for starters. If you just took everything they owned, a career criminal would have the smarts to steal and kill to get what was needed to survive. Take all they own and put them in jail for a very long time.
2007-07-17 12:08:35 · answer #2 · answered by phlada64 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For certain types of career criminals. It wouldn't deter career street criminals. They spend the money as fast as it comes in. There's nothing to seize because they're always broke.
White collar crooks are a different story. Give them a couple of years in a cell to think about things. But yeah, take away everything they own and you'll see a lot less fraud and negligence.
When crime doesn't pay, the crime rate drops.
2007-07-17 12:06:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If career criminals had property then the property that they had should be sold off and the capital gained should be distributed among their victims
2007-07-17 12:11:13 · answer #4 · answered by no idea 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree completely. Making the bad guys pay twice what they steal or gain from crime would really make them think twice! Vandalism would cease too.
There is such a law. It is just, as in so many other similar situations, that the lacklustre, incompetent, cowardly civil servants who are supposed to take action, do nothing.
Professional crime still pays.
2007-07-17 20:37:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No... seeing as how a good chunk of the "career" criminals are as dumb as a box of rocks and have no assets...
2007-07-17 12:09:08 · answer #6 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
good idea in theory, but the trouble with this, is most of them have nothing to take, they live off the state, live in council property or rented properties, probably have a car that's not registered to them, or taxed and insured, so what there to take ? best thing is to cut their hands off so they cant steal or commit crimes.
2007-07-17 19:13:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then they would just commit more crimes. Didn't think that one through, did you? Der, lets take away a poor persons few possessions, that will make him less likely to steal. Throw their azz in jail, and make it so they can learn life skills while they are thinking about their crime.
2007-07-17 16:19:37 · answer #8 · answered by blibityblabity 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Most career criminals have no assets anyway.
2007-07-17 12:01:20 · answer #9 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If they happen to have any property or assets, maybe...
...using it to make restitution to the victims would certainly be reasonable.
2007-07-17 12:03:09 · answer #10 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋