FYI "because I want the person to suffer" is not a valid reason to lock someone up.
We lock people up as a punishment just like your parents may have sent you to your room when you were acting up. We do it under the thinking of they won't do it again once they've paid their debt but that thinking is flawed on SO many level. Among them are:
1. Prison does NOT reform people in fact it pushes many deeper into a life of crime
2. Even after they have "paid their debt to society" they are still ostracised and disadvantaged
3. Unlike your parents there is no mercy/compassion in our judicial system AFAICT or if there is it's only directed at upper-class white males....
> FYI "because I want the person to suffer" is not a valid reason to lock someone up.
I don't know if it's valid, but it certainly a reason why we lock people up. "An eye for an eye" is a universal principle and I assume victims expect some type of revenge. Maybe that's something we should refrain from in a perfect world, but I don't think we're there yet!
Don't know about you, but to me punishment is about first and foremost protecting the society from persons actions and about offering a chance for redemption/improvement.
Vengeance is never a good agenda. Eye for an eye is an universal sadist principle.
No, it's not. It's a common desire, but it is not universal. And plenty of victims of various crimes don't want revenge, but to just put the whole affair behind them.
Other countries put people in prison to protect the public, not to make them suffer. Many countries dropped the victorian method (lock people up and throw away the key, and lock them up in fairly nasty conditions)of prisons when they figured out it does not work.
How much they have varied from the Victorian method of prisons depends on the country, from Scandinavia at the one end,to the UK at the other.
> "because I want the person to suffer" is not a valid reason to lock someone up.
It's one of the established reasons: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. The following are all from Wikipedia:
----
Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to deter people from offending.
Incapacitation in the context of sentencing philosophy refers to the effect of a sentence in terms of positively preventing (rather than merely deterring) future offending.
Rehabilitation is the re-integration into society of a convicted person and the main objective of modern penal policy.
Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime. When an offender breaks the law, justice requires that they forfeit something in return.
----
The U.S. certainly puts more weight to retribution - in my opinion, too much weight - while European justice systems are more interested in rehabilitation, sometimes being ridiculously naive.
I've spent quite some time in Germany and well I'm sorry to shatter your bubble but Germans do cross an empty street when the light is red. I've even seen people party in nightclubs and go outside to drink vodka or other drinks they bought in their car.
And to further tear your argument, Spanish who have a "reputation" in Europe of crossing by red light and of having a bit more of loose attitude towards rules have a similar murder rate. 0.9 for Spain, 0.86 for Germany.
I think the factors are external rather than internal. I don't know exactly what causes it though. The higher availability of guns in the US? The fact that the prison system in the US does not reform but punishes instead and convert first time convicts into hardened criminals? Other factors?
I don't know but having lived in all three countries, I don't see that many differences in term of people's character that could explain the difference in murder rate.
The higher availability of guns in the US? The fact that the prison system in the US does not reform but punishes instead and convert first time convicts into hardened criminals? Other factors?
Probably not the guns. Germany has about a third the rate of gun ownership the US does and its rates of serious violent crimes, both with and without guns are much less than a third those of the US. All of Scandinavia, Switzerland and Iceland have high rates of gun ownership and even lower crime rates.
The prisons might have an impact, but I think at least as important is the post-release re-integration in to society. The parole system in the US is set up more to ensure that released prisoners can be easily subjected to further punishment if need be than to help them lead productive lives.
An important factor is that those countries have a distinct culture and sense of community. People are more willing to hurt others they don't see as part of a group to which they are loyal. I actually see the lack of cultural homogeneity as a strength for the US overall, but I think it tends to lead to more crime.
Another important factor is the relative lack of poverty in northwestern Europe. Someone who sees none of their prospective ways to earn a living legally leading to a comfortable lifestyle is more likely to consider illegal and antisocial approaches.
I didn't know gun ownership in Germany was that high, anecdotically, the only people I know with a gun over there keep it in the hunting/shooting club and not at home (It's more of a gun used for sport than for protection).
In term of cultural homogeneity, I don't actually think there's much less cultural homogeneity in Europe compared to US. We do have a lot of immigrants from different cultures actually...
I do agree in term of poverty factor, for a country that is seen externally as being rather powerful and rich, there's a lot of inequality in the US with a very sizable underclass and a seemingly low upward mobility. This is the one thing I rather appreciate in Europe, education is almost free and opens a lot of opportunities that I probably wouldn't have had if I were american (even my tuition when I was an exchange student in the US was free thanks to that).
> I don't know but having lived in all three countries, I don't see that many differences in term of people's character that could explain the difference in murder rate.
No offense, but could this be selection bias? You have certainly only talked to a selected subset of people..
I think if 80% of the U.S. population would want a thorough reform of their justice system, it would happen.
What exactly would an 'external' factor be for you?
Sure, it might be a selection bias, I was a student in all three cases and, by definition, students tend to be more educated.
What I mean by external factor is the laws, the way the criminal system is setup, the lack or not of reinsertion opportunities for ex-cons and so on. You might say that in a democracy all of this is decided by the people, but there's a certain inertia that sets in that mean that people have very little influence in changing things and there are powerful forces that try to keep things as they are (for profit or different reasons).
Ah ok, I see. Well for a while I was looking at those factors to be external rather than internal as well - but I am more and more convinced that people get exactly the government they want, all the time.
