It is one thing to muse about criminals and the assumed motivation and deterrents (always an assumption, they are liars anyhow), but how can it be estimated how many people do not get involved in crime because of the penalties? Where drug importing that could harms hundreds of thousands of people is concerned, one would-be criminal dissuaded is not a bad result! Although most offenders would have a past of oppositional (to authority) and anti-social behaviour if not crime.

While it is theorised from convicted criminals that what they they dislike most is being collared, the recidivism in gaol and later demonstrates that a sizeable majority, over 60%, regard crime as their day job and a normal part of their life. They will not be deterred by any means.

The self-concern, selfishness and egocentrism of the criminal and lack of concern/empathy for his/her victims and the effect of the crime on society are probably his/her most obvious characteristics. Of those who commit serious crimes many may be psychopaths and narcissists. However criminals are criminals and it is they who choose their crimes, victims and place to offend.

Where foreign consumers and their traffickers offer huge financial incentives and pressure to produce and deal, Second and Third World countries face extreme, more like impossible, difficulty in controlling drugs and the HIV* that is associated with it and is also wreaking havoc in their societies.

The big money is coming from First World countries like Australia. In First World countries the big money that supports the drug gangs and keeps them in business comes from well paid bureaucrats and professionals (eg., the legal profession - cocaine and recreational tabs).

*HIV is reportedly on a growth path in Indonesia, often leaping to heterosexual women, which is a social and health catastrophe.

contd.

It is not by coincidence that Australia is awash with drugs and the public and police have been objecting to slaps on the wrist for drug for dealers and traffickers of commercial quantities of drugs within Australia. That is not just first offenders with $1,000 of marijuana, where the judge is hoping for rehabilitation outside of prison.

It is not sufficient to embarrass Second and Third World countries for their attempts to control criminality and the health and social problems that come from foreign demand and $windfalls from foreign traffickers. That is social 'progressives' in First World countries having their cake and eating it too. Solutions must also be offered, with the best being the most obvious, First World countries please get your own backyards in shape!

Dear onthebeach,

Your recent posts regarding drugs make sense. Australia, the US and other countries should do more to put their house in order in regard to drugs. Prohibition in the US was a massive failure. As bad as tobacco and alcohol beverages are it was worse when the government tried to make booze illegal. I think the same thing applies to drugs. Legalise them to get some measure of control. One thing it would do immediately is to lower the price and the crimes to get the money to pay the price.

Is Mise,

As I said to you earlier, knowing the exact number is not necessary and expecting it is a useless red herring.

<<Even if crime in general goes up there is no way that it can be shewn that punishment did not act as a deterrent....>>

Not so. Deterrent effects can be measured by watching the trends of crimes targeted by policy changes for long after the policy change occurs, while controlling for factors that may also influence the trend such as economic downturn or availability of drugs. The need for a precise number is just something you’ve made up.

Questionnaires by researchers can also help to gauge a deterrent effect although the sample size would need to be in the thousands for any accuracy. And yes, researchers gather incriminating data from their subjects all the time. They can do this by conducting interviews anonymously or in confidence.

Having so many jurisdictions in the one country so close to each other, the US is also a good test case. From the US, we can see no reliable evidence of a deterrent effect given the fact that even two states side by side, with similar demographics and economic conditions, can have homicide rates that do not indicate that the death penalty has a deterrent effect any greater than LWOP. In fact it’s usually the state with the death penalty that has the higher homicide rate and that suggests a brutalising effect.

<<Fear of punishment acts as a deterrent otherwise there is no point in having punishment>>

What about retribution, incapacitation, restoration and rehabilitation? Do they not count?

<<Therefore the death penalty acts as a deterrent, if anyone can't see this then...>>

So did you take into account the fact that different types of offences have different levels of rational thought go into them? No, this is just broad generalisation and, to a large extent, a non sequitur.

Continued…

...Continued

Nine out of ten criminologists (and that number is slowly shrinking) don't think that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than LWOP, and don’t think it’s a deterrent at all in certain cases. Now what do you think is the more likely scenario here? That every criminologist in the world just happened to overlook the fact that we have no way of measuring the deterrent effect of the death penalty for reasons that you, a layperson, can just come along and point out because it simply occurred to them? Or that perhaps, as I pointed out earlier, there are actually methods of measuring the deterrent effect and that you’re just not aware of them?

Kind of puts the weight and reliability of your claim into perspective, doesn't it?

We keep getting told by those in the know that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Has anyone collected statistics from criminals who have gone straight? Or from people in general who are law abiding?

The other night I was watching the Chinese dating program called 'Íf you are the One'. A nice looking guy was on the show to find a date and in the course of introducing himself, he mentioned he was a butcher and that the company he owns produces the safest pork in China. He added, to produce unsafe meat products is punishable by death. His insinuation was clearly the threat of the death penalty inspired him to do things properly.