Your thoughts on Crime Punishment in the United States?

Question

Need to be more strict? Or should it be lighter?

Answer 1

More strict....

Answer 2

After watching Nat'l Geo, I think in some things we r very light on our prisoners, I don't feel as though they r really being punished, daddy or mommy see those sad eyes and they r off the hook and right back 2 some sort of freedom, watching TV,playing sports, using the phone what kind of punishment is this my parents never did this for me when i was on punishment and that was probably because i didn't do chores, clean room,said way 2 much,came in late , just who r we kidding here with these prisoners, also i think if you go 2 death row all of Ur rights gone!! none Nada, and when u are put 2 death Ur body parts should be put 2 good use, there are enough people out there waiting 4 kidney's,heart's,liver, why should people that have been paying taxes, 4 them to watch TV, have to wait 4 someone 2 die that signed up 2 donate in order 2 get a part or die just waiting 4 their name 2 come up on the list. HOLLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 3

One can't generalize for the whole country. However, with so many liberal judges seated on the bench today, More often than not, the punishment is too light for the crime which was committed. And Appeals judges often overturn sentences to more lenient punishment.Sentences should be served for the time imposed at sentencing. No parole. Time off for good behavior is a cop out. Every one had to behave well or extend the sentence.Maybe lighter sentences but served for the full duration.

Answer 4

The United States adheres to a policy that sociolgists refer to as "Disintigrative Shaming", which differs than "re-integrative shaming" which is characterised by punishment, then an encouragement to return as a productive member of society.

In the United States (Disintegrative), people are labled as "deviants" for the remainder of their lives if the crime is severe enough. Thus they see less potential in themselves and resort to more deviance. Take, for example, the decision of some cities to display the names of convicted DWI violators on billboards. This is continuing punishment AFTER the convicted has already paid his/her debt to society. Thus, punishment is aimed at ostracising rather than reforming people.

To make a long story short, my thoughts are that the system should be stronger on some violations (i.e. violence), more lax on others. For example, financial crimes. What sense does it make to throw say, and indsider trading violator in prison? You're essentially saying that the solution to a crime that cost the public money is to burden the public with a higher bill for this person. Why not keep this person out of prison and tax him/her heavily?

Generally, policies that go against the essence of reason should be reformed or eliminated.

Answer 5

I'd say overall it needs to be more strict - stealing should have harsher penalties, adultery should have some kind of penalty too, public obscenity, bribery and murders need harsher punishments also... but juveniles shouldn't be included in these changes.

I'd vouch for more money being spent on Crime Prevention Programs and Public Good projects instead of more money being spent directly on jails and police forces... we need to shift the focus a little bit.. to try to get to the roots of the issue.

Answer 6

More strict. There is so much discrepency on things. 2 people same crime. One gets slammed hard, the other a tap on the wrist. Needs to be fair. Criminals need to know there is a serious consequence for the crime. This lame stuff they don't care and keep doing more and more.

Answer 7

Bit hard to answer in general terms - it differs between different areas of criminal law and in different jurisdictions. It's a question of personal values in part, and the amount of efficacy you demand of a policy in reducing crime before you're willing to say it's worth circumventing civil liberties in order to implement it.
My personal view is "lighter" in many situations: the information I've come across doesn't support capital punishment, mandatory sentencing or "zero-tolerance" drug policy as especially efficacious, but positions differ and I have no doubt that some people argue otherwise. Perhaps the most I can say is that policies like these are regarded in most first-world countries as pretty draconian.

Answer 8

I think they should definitely be more strict. Criminals spend a fraction of their sentences in jail and are free to strike again. There should be mandatory sentences for some crimes for example former Judge Cashman in Vermont gave a child rapist 60 days in jail after much public outrage it was increased to 3 yrs. But, what is 3 yrs to the victim of this crime? Our legal system today caters to the criminal. They are appointed an attorney if they cannot afford one. There is not an adequate accounting system in court to check to see if this criminal has transferred assets to be deemed financially incapable of attorney fees. But, what about the victim? The DA/prosecutor fights for the state but what about appointing attorney's for the victims to fight for their rights? There needs to be many changes in our judicial process to restore equality to everyone.

Answer 9

Well, I havn't totally had time to research my point of veiw on this subject. As of right now, here it is. I think the death penalty is a good thing, admit it, some people need to die. On the other hand I think that we issue the death penalty far to often.I think that we should use life with out perole more often.

Not that anyone will really listen to a 14 year old, but that is my view on it.

Answer 10

the system is broken, I know a tone of people who have been accused of crimes they had nothing to do with it and some have ended up serving years in jail. I'd say that if every D.A. spent a month in prison before becoming a D.A. might actually pay attention to what they are doing and get the bad people put away and keep the good ones safe.

Answer 11

Some more strict, some lighter...

Need to be more specific